Interlocutory Applications No. 10/2011 & 57/2012 in Petition No. 239/2010. Case: Aravali Power Company Private Limited Vs North Delhi Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and BSES Yamuna Power Limited. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case NumberInterlocutory Applications No. 10/2011 & 57/2012 in Petition No. 239/2010
Party NameAravali Power Company Private Limited Vs North Delhi Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and BSES Yamuna Power Limited
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Ajay Dua, Shri S.K. Sharma, Shri N.N. Sadasivan and Ms. Shilpa Agarwal, APCPL and For Respondents: Ms. Jyotirmayee Raj, Shri B.S. Rajput, NTPC, Shri R.B. Sharma, Advocate, BRPL, Ms. Ankita Singh, Shri Mukesh Khanna and Shri Y.K. Sehgal, PGCIL
JudgesPramod Deo, Chairperson, V.S. Verma and M. Deena Dayalan, Members
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Sections 10, 61, 62, 62(1)(a), 64, 7, 79, 79(1) (a), 79(1)(a), 86
Judgement DateJune 08, 2013
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order:

  1. This petition has been filed by Aravali Power Company Private Limited (APCPL) (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") seeking approval of transmission tariff of 400 kV D/C Jhajjar-Mundka Transmission Line, a dedicated transmission line of Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project (IGSTPP) (hereinafter referred to as "transmission asset") under Section 62 and 79(1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner has been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is joint venture company of NTPC, Haryana Power Generation Company Limited (HPGCL) and Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited (IPGCL). The petitioner has set up a power station named IGSTPP in district Jhajjar of Haryana having an approved capacity of 1500 MW (3X500 MW). The petitioner has filed a separate application for approval of tariff for IGSTPP and it is being considered by the Commission. The power generated from IGSTPP was originally envisaged to be shared between Delhi and Haryana in the ratio of 50:50.

  2. The petitioner has also constructed the instant transmission asset as a dedicated transmission line, of 65.69 km/ckt., connecting the 400 kV IGSTPP, Jhajjar to 400/220kV Mundka Sub-station at Delhi, constructed by Delhi Transco Limited, for transmission of power to North Delhi Power Limited, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited and BSES Yamuna Power Limited. Haryana's share of 50% of the power from IGSTPP, Jhajjar is evacuated by Haryana at the bus bar of IGSTPP and hence no transmission charges for the subject transmission line are payable by Haryana.

  3. The transmission asset was anticipated to be commissioned on 31.8.2010. However, the transmission asset was commissioned on 1.3.2011 and accordingly the petitioner was directed to submit revised tariff forms. The petitioner has filed an amended petition in February 2012, revising the tariff forms as per the actual date of commercial operation. The petitioner has submitted that the transmission tariff for this line would be charged from the beneficiaries of Delhi for evacuation of 50% of power from IGSTPP, Jhajjar.

  4. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application, I.A. No. 10/2011, during April 2011 seeking provisional tariff @ 95% of the annual fixed cost under Regulation 5 of the 2009 Tariff Regulations.

  5. The petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application, I.A. No. 57/2012, in December, 2012 and has prayed for the following:-

    1. Declare Jhajjar-Mundka Line as "Deemed ISTS" line under CERC (Sharing of Transmission Charges & Losses Regulations) 2010 and determine the tariff of the said line accordingly.

    2. Pass the order to shift Main meters at Jhajjar end for Jhajjar-Mundka line. Till the shifting of Main meters, check meters installed at Jhajjar end be considered for energy accounting and billing for Jhajjar.

    3. Direct NRLDC/NRPC to consider Check meters readings at Jhajjar end for billing and accounting purposes and revising UI accounts from COD of Unit#1 of IGSTPP, Jhajjar till arrangement at above comes into force

  6. The Commission sought the views of the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), PGCIL and POSOCO on whether transmission tariff could be determined by the Commission as part of the tariff of the generating station and if so, whether the tariff should be determined as per the norms applicable to the generating station or the transmission system.

  7. In response, CEA, TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL) and PGCIL have filed their comments. The comments filed by them are as follows:-

    (a) CEA has submitted, vide its letter dated 9.10.2012, that the power generated by IGSTPP was originally envisaged to be shared by Delhi and Haryana equally. Subsequently, some of the power surrendered by Delhi has been supplied by the petitioner to States like Kerala and Andhra...

To continue reading

Request your trial