Petition Nos. 13/RP/2011 and 9/MP/2011. Case: Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs Power System Operation Corporation Ltd. (POSOCO). Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case NumberPetition Nos. 13/RP/2011 and 9/MP/2011
CounselFor Appellant: K.Gopal Choudhury, Advocate
JudgesA.K. Singhal and A.S. Bakshi, Members
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Sections 178(2)(g), 2(32), 28, 28(3)( e), 29, 33, 79, 79(1)(b), 79(1)(h), 86(1 )(h), 86(1)(c), 86(1)(f), 86(1)(h)
Judgement DateMay 07, 2015
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order:

  1. Petition No. 9/MP/2011 was filed by the petitioner, APGENCO for relaxation of the provisions of clause 5.2(f) of the Indian Electricity Grid Code (IEGC), 2010 in exercise of its power under Clause (4) of Part 7 of the IEGC, 2010 and to grant exemption from and extension of time for implementation of RGMO in the thermal and hydro generating stations of the petitioner, as summarized under:

    (a) Exemption from RGMO

    (b) Extension of time for RGMO

  2. By order dated 28.6.2011 the said petition was disposed of by the Commission and the relevant portion of the order containing the findings of the Commission is as under:

  3. The Commission observed that RGMO has been recommended by CEA in LMW turbines also, which would involve consideration of capital expenditure, during the Renovation and Modernization (R&M) of the units. It was also observed that RGMO is in interest of generators and in case the generators delay the implementation of RGMO, then these units would have to be operated in FGMO mode with appropriate droop setting, so that these units participate in load sharing and contribute to the stability of the grid.

  4. As regards the constraints expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on discharge of water in canal in case of hydro generating units, the representative of RLDC clarified that the constraints relating to discharge of water in canal were insignificant. He however submitted that these units could operate on FGMO mode as time constant of the governing system was much smaller than the time constant of control of water system. He also submitted that the non-implementation of RGMO resulted in fluctuation in grid frequency and destabilization of the line flow and voltages, thereby threatening grid stability. He however suggested that these units could be put on FGMO without loss of further time, but prayed that the petitioner should be directed to implement the provisions of the IEGC, 2010 without fail.

  5. Considering the submissions of the petitioner and the documents on record, we observe that the steps taken by the petitioner for implementation of the RGMO in its units of the generating station is belated. It is expected that the petitioner would expedite the implementation of RGMO in these units at the earliest. We, however direct the petitioner to ensure that these thermal and hydro generating units shall be put on FGMO with manual intervention with immediate effect, till such time RGMO is implemented.

  6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this review petition (Petition No. 13/RP/2011) seeking review and modification of the order dated 28.6.2011, as under:

    (a) Exempt the petitioner's Dr. Narla Tata Rao Thermal Power Station (420MW) LMW Units-I and II from the requirement of RGMO and allow time till 31.12.2011 for implementation of FGMO with manual intervention to the extent practically feasible in these units, and

    (b) Allow time upto 31.12.2011 for implementation of FGMO in Dr. NTTPS-3 X 210 KWU Units 5 & 6, Dr. NTTPS-1 X 500 KWU Unit 7, RTPP 2 X 210 KWU Units 1 & 2, KTPP-1 X 500 MW KWU Unit I and KTPS-Stage-VI X 250 MW KWU Unit 10; and

    (c) Exempt the petitioner's Nagarjunasagar Right Canal Power house 3 x 30 MW, Nagarjunasagar Left Canal Power house 2 x 30 MW, Donkarayi Power House 1 x 25MW and Penna Ahobilam Power house 2 x 10 MW from the requirement of RGMO and FGMO:

  7. Considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Commission by order dated 29.4.2013 disposed of the said review petition by modifying the order dated 28.6.2011 in respect of the thermal and hydroelectric generating stations of the petitioner as summarized under:

  8. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.4.2013, the petitioner had filed Appeal No. 208/2013 before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (the Tribunal) contending that the petitioner had not been heard fully on merits, in some of the issues raised by him. However, based on the submissions of the Commission that further opportunity of hearing could be given to the petitioner, the Tribunal by order dated 2.9.2014 disposed of the said appeal by remanding the matter to the Commission to hear the petitioner in respect of the issues on which the petitioner is aggrieved and pass final order in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:

    In view of the above statement made by the Central Commission in the affidavit at Para No. 5, we feel that it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Central Commission to hear the Appellant/Petitioner in respect of the issues by which the Appellant is aggrieved and pass the final order in accordance with law. Accordingly, ordered.

  9. In compliance with the directions of the Tribunal, the review petition was heard on 21.10.2014 and the learned counsel for the petitioners filed written submissions made detailed arguments on issues such as (a) the implementation of RGMO/FGMO in the operation of hydroelectric projects, namely (i) Donkarayi Power House, (ii) Machkund HEP, (iii) Upper Sileru & Lower Sileru HEP (iv) Nagarjuna HEP (v) Srisailam Left Bank Power House and (vi) Jurala HEP (b) the consideration of proportionality, cost-benefit and improved frequency band in the facts and circumstances of the case and (c) the non-consideration of the question of jurisdiction of the Central Commission in respect of the generating stations which are not connected with the ISTS and which are embedded with the State Grid. The Commission after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, reserved orders in the petition after directing the petitioner to submit additional information on the following:

    For Jurala Hydroelectric Project Details of the incidents during which FGMO response got curtailed due to scarcity of water in the system along with a detailed write-up on the operation under FGMO, including the restrictions imposed by other Civic authorities which hampered the availability of water for providing the FGMO response.

    For Machkund Hydroelectric Project Status and the time frame required/involved in respect of R&M of the units of the station.

  10. The respondent, POSOCO (impleaded as respondent by order dated 2.4.2014 of the Tribunal) has filed its reply vide affidavit dated 1.12.2014 on the issues raised by the petitioners. The petitioners, in compliance with the direction of the Commission has filed additional information vide affidavits dated 2.12.2014 and 23.1.2015. The petitioners have also filed rejoinder vide affidavits dated 24.1.2015 to the reply of the respondent POSOCO.

  11. Before proceeding, we take note of the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Central Commission in respect of the generating stations of the petitioner on the ground that they do not from part of the ISTS and are embedded within the State Grid and examine them in the subsequent paragraphs.

    Jurisdiction

  12. One important issue raised by the petitioner is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Commission in respect of the generating stations which are not connected to the ISTS and which are connected only to and embedded within a State Grid. The petitioner has submitted that of all the thermal and hydro generating stations stated above, only the Kakatiya Thermal Power Project (1 x 500 MW) is connected directly to the ISTS and this station is already operating under RGMO. It has also submitted that all the other generating stations are embedded within the Andhra Pradesh State Grid and are subject only to the provisions of the State Grid Code within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. The petitioner in its written submissions dated 21.10.2014 has submitted that the generating stations which are connected to the ISTS are subject to the IEGC and is within the jurisdiction of the Central Commission and all the other generating stations owned and/or operated by the petitioners are connected only to and embedded within the State Grid and are therefore subject only to the State Grid Code and the jurisdiction of the State Regulatory Commissions. The petitioner while pointing out that its generating stations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Central Commission, has submitted that while Section 79(1)(h) provides for the Central Commission to specify a Grid Code and Section 86(1)(f) provides for the State Commission to specify the State Grid Code and hence there is clearly a demarcation of power and jurisdiction between the Central and State Commissions. The petitioner has argued that merely because the State Grid Code is required to be consistent with the Central Commission's Grid Code, it cannot be considered that the State Grid Code is rendered odious and/or that the Central Commission's Grid Code extends even to all entities embedded within a State's Grid. The petitioner has also stated that a conjoint reading of Clauses 1.2, 1.3, 2(qq) and 2(gggg) of the IEGC, 2010 would clearly show that the IEGC itself, on its own terms, applies only to utilities, generating companies, consumers connected to the ISTS.

    Reply of Respondent

  13. The respondent, POSOCO in its reply affidavit dated 1.12.2014 has submitted as under:

    (a) It is submitted that Hon'ble Commission has jurisdiction on all power stations connected to the synchronously operating power system.

    (b) Section 86(1)(h) of The Electricity Act, 2003 provides that one of the functions of State Commission is to specify State Grid Code consistent with the Grid Code specified under clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 79. However, due process has to be followed for amending State Grid Code to make it compatible with IEGC, as and when the same is amended and it may take some time. During the intervening period, there cannot be multiple Regulations governing generating stations operating in the same synchronous power system and hence IEGC is applicable to all generators, irrespective of whether it is connected ISTS or intra-state system. It may be emphasized that any deficiencies in System Protection &amp...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT