Petition No. 158/MP/2012. Case: DPSC Limited, Kolkata Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, New Delhi and West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited, Kolkata. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
| Case Number | Petition No. 158/MP/2012 |
| Judges | Dr. Pramod Deo, Chairperson, Shri S. Jayaraman, Member and Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member |
| Issue | Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 38 (2), 42, 43, 79(1)(c), 79 (1)(f) |
| Judgement Date | September 21, 2012 |
| Court | Central Electricity Regulatory Commission |
Order:
(New Delhi)
-
The petitioner, DPSC Limited (DPSCL) has filed the present petition under
the Regulation 32 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of
Connectivity, Long Term Access and Medium-Term Open Access in Inter-State
Transmission and Related Matters), Regulations 2009 (the Connectivity
Regulations) seeking directions to Power grid Corporation of India Limited to
grant connectivity to the petitioner in terms of its application dated
10.5.2011 in a time bound manner. The Petitioner is a company engaged in
distribution of electricity over an area of approximately 618 kms in
Asansol-Raniganj belt of West Bengal. The
Petitioner has submitted that its current distribution network is an isolated
grid in a radial mode which is neither connected to the Central Transmission
Utility nor to the State Transmission Utility. The Petitioner draws power
through two 33/11 kV sub-stations from Damodar Valley Corporation and three
33/11 kV sub-stations from West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company
Limited.
-
The petitioner has submitted that with a view to address the increasing
demand of electricity in its licensed area and to meet its obligation under
Sections 42
and 43
of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Petitioner is required to arrange for
procurement of power from various sources. In this context, it has become
imperative that the Petitioner is connected with the grid. The Petitioner
applied on 10.5.2011 to PGCIL for connectivity to the inter-State transmission
system. The Petitioner has submitted that it has sought connectivity for 1000
MW from PGCIL with the expected date of connectivity as July 2014. In the
meeting between PGCIL and Phase 2 applicants for connectivity and long term
access of Jharkhand, Bihar and West Bengal
held on 29.7.2011, the petitioner requested for modification of connectivity
requirement from 1000 MW to 500 MW. It was decided in the said meeting that
since the responsibility for planning of power supply to DPSCL is within the
purview WBSETCL, the matter needs to be addressed out on the advice of WBSETCL.
Pursuant to the above decision, PGCIL issued a communication to WBSETCL
requesting for its views and observations with regard to the Petitioner's
application for grant of connectivity. The Petitioner communicated to WBSETCL
requesting it to convey its comment with regard to the petitioner's application
for connectivity. However, WBSETCL conveyed that it was not in a position to
give its views in the absence of any proposed connection arrangement from CTU.
The Petitioner in its letter dated 23.9.2011 submitted the following proposal
to CTU with a request to elicit the views of WBSETCL thereon:
For your information we want to set up a 400 kV sub-station
at Chalbalpur in the district of Burdwan, West Bengal which is 14 kms away from
your Maithon 400 kV S/s (Rupnarayanpur). We want to get connectivity at
Chalbalpur by LILO of one circuit of Mejia-Maithon 400 kV double circuit line
as suggested by you or Maithon-Purulia 400 kV double circuit line whichever
would be suitable for PGCIL. Please note that the substation as well as the
associated line would be constructed at our own cost.
In the meeting of Standing Committee on Power System Planning in Eastern
Region held on 8.2.2012, it was decided that the Petitioner should first take
the regulatory approval from WBERC and then submit the proposal to WBSETCL for
technical examination. The Petitioner in its letter dated 9.2.2012 sought the
technical clearance of CEA for formulation of the transmission plan before
submitting the application for investment approval. The Petitioner in its
letter dated 27.6.2012 submitted before WBERC that it is not in a position to
file any investment approval without clearance by WBSETCL and requested WBERC
to direct WBSETCL to grant technical clearance to the petitioner for the
proposed connectivity at the earliest. The Petitioner is stated to have written
a letter to this Commission on 28.6.2012 to direct PGCIL to grant connectivity
to the petitioner.
-
It is against the above factual matrix...
To continue reading
Request your trial