Petition No. 311/MP/2013. Case: East Coast Energy Limited Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

Case NumberPetition No. 311/MP/2013
CounselFor Appellant: Rajiv Bhardwaj, Advocate
JudgesGireesh B. Pradhan, Chairperson, M. Deena Dayalan and A.K. Singhal, Members
IssueElectricity Act, 2003 - Sections 10(1), 164, 38(2)(c), 4(1), 68, 79(1)(c)
Judgement DateJanuary 05, 2015
CourtCentral Electricity Regulatory Commission

Order:

  1. This petition has been filed by East Coast Energy Private Limited under Section 79(1)(c) and (f) and section 38(2)(c) and (d) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulation 8.8 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Grant of Connectivity, Long Term and medium Term Open Access in inter-State transmission and related matters) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "Connectivity Regulations, 2009") for the alleged refusal of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited to entertain the petitioner's application for grant of connectivity under the Connectivity Regulations to its 2640 MW Bhavanapadu Thermal Power Project in Srikakulam District of Andhra Pradesh.

    Background of the case:

  2. The petitioner, a generating company, is implementing the 2640 MW, Bhavanapadu Thermal Power Project in two Phases of 1320 MW each. Each Phase comprises two units of 660 MW each with the aggregate capacity of 1320 MW. The first and second units of the first phase are scheduled for commissioning in December 2015 and March, 2016 respectively. The second Phase is scheduled to be commissioned subsequently after a gap of 12 to 18 months after the first Phase. The petitioner is stated to have obtained all government and regulatory clearances and approvals and the project is presently under construction.

  3. On 11.10.2007, the petitioner submitted an application to Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (CTU) for grant of Long Term Open Access (LTA) under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Open Access in interState Transmission) Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter "Open Access Regulations 2004") for its 2640 MW Bhavanapadu TPS (Phase I & II).

  4. CTU in its letter dated 5.11.2007 intimated about the requirement of system studies for the purpose of system strengthening in the region. The petitioner vide its letter dated 7.12.2007 requested CTU to carry out the system studies required for strengthening of the transmission system in the region to facilitate evacuation of power from the generating station to SR, WR and NR and paid an amount of ` 17,94,390/- to CTU for conducting the system studies.

  5. The petitioner vide its letter dated 29.11.2008 intimated CTU that during discussion with CTU it was understood that CTU would require about 90 acres of land for setting up the pooling station to which its project would be connected and offered the required area of land out of the land available for the project. The petitioner further stated in the said letter that once the suitability of the land is confirmed by CTU, ownership of the land could be transferred to CTU on mutually agreeable terms at a later date.

  6. On 18.2.2009, a meeting was held by CTU with the generation developers seeking long term open access located in Srikakulam and East Godavari areas in Southern Region. In the said meeting, it was indicated that prima facie there would be requirement of establishment of two (2) 765 kV Pooling Stations, one in East Godavai District and the other in Srikakulam District in Andhra Pradesh. During the presentation by PGCIL, it was explained that location of the pooling station shall be required to be selected in such a manner that power from the projects in the vicinity can be conveniently brought to the pooling station through dedicated transmission lines. In this connection, it was suggested that if possible, the Pooling Station could be made at the generation switchyard of one of the power projects and if the site conditions permit, bus bar of one project can be extended to other contiguous projects which would save substantial investment by avoiding establishment of a pooling station at other place and then inter-connecting through high capacity transmission lines. Generation developers agreed to look into the proposal and provide any inputs in this regard to CTU. It was decided in the said meeting that within a period of 30 to 45 days, CTU in association with CEA would carry out system studies keeping in view the status given by the generation developers for identification of the transmission system which shall then be discussed with generation developers/constituents of Southern and other beneficiary regions. It was also decided that once the proposal was agreed by all the beneficiary regions, the communication of grant of LTOA will be conveyed by CTU. It was clarified that for implementation of the common transmission system by CTU, the generation developers need to sign BPTA which would be forwarded to the developers by CTU.

  7. The petitioner in its letter dated 29.5.2009 apprised CTU about the progress made by the project and reiterated its offer of providing land for the pooling station. The petitioner emphasized that on account of the time consuming process of land acquisition in Srikakulam district due to several local factors, substantial time can be saved by locating the pooling station in the land offered by the petitioner and sought acceptance of its proposal from CTU so as to work out the mutually acceptable terms for transfer of land.

  8. On 5.6.2009, CTU sent the agenda for the meeting on Long Term Open Access Applications in the Southern Region scheduled on 15.6.2009. In the agenda, it was indicated that the petitioner had sought long term access for 2640 MW with the intended beneficiaries as 750 MW to SR, 600 MW to WR and 1100 MW to NR. Further, in the agenda, the dedicated system for the project of the petitioner at an approximate cost of ` 1400 crore was indicated. The petitioner in its letter dated 8.6.2009 requested PGCIL to revise the intended beneficiaries as earlier intimated vide its letters dated 26.8.2008, 20.11.2008 and 29.11.2008 which was 1940 MW to SR, 500 MW to WR and Nil to NR. The petitioner in the said letter further requested PGCIL for a confirmation that the sub-station would be located on the land being offered by the petitioner.

  9. On 15.6.2009, the meeting on the Long Term Access Applications in the Southern Region was held. In the meeting, the revised target beneficiaries as indicated by the petitioner were taken note of. CTU indicated that though revised studies would be carried out on account of the changed target beneficiaries, it would not make much material difference as power allocated to SR constituents would be displaced by the power allocated to NR/WR constituents in other generation projects in Tamil Nadu through the principle of displacement. In the meeting, it was decided that:

    (i) Connectivity requirement would essentially remain the same inter alia comprising establishment of 765 kV Pooling Station in the area and integration of the pooling station though LILO of Behrampur-Gazuwaka 400 kV D/C line.

    (ii) The petitioner and NCC would have to construct the dedicated transmission line for bringing power up to the pooling station through 400 kV or 765 kV voltage level transmission lines.

    (iii) Stepping up of the generation at the East Coast would be at 400 kV level and that for NCC, would be at 765 kV level.

    (v) As regards the location of the pooling station, it was indicated that both East Coast and NCC projects had offered land for establishment of the Pooling Station. It was decided that the decision on this would be taken separately after carrying out the analysis with respect to the locations of the project vis-à-vis the location of the Angul Pooling Station where power would be ultimately transferred for onward transmission.

  10. A follow up meeting was held in the office of CTU on 25.6.2009 in which the representatives of the petitioner and NCC Vamshadara were present. It was decided in the said meeting that the petitioner's generation would be stepped up at 400 kV level and the petitioner would have connectivity to the grid through dedicated 400 kV transmission lines to the pooling station which would be created by CTU at a suitable location. The power generated at East Coast and NCC would be pooled at the pooling station which would be further transmitted to Angul pooling station (being developed by CTU) through the 765 kV transmission line. The pooling station and the transmission line therefrom to the grid would be constructed by CTU. In its letter dated 29.6.2009, CTU asked the petitioner to offer its comments on the generic BPTA mailed to it and indicate a suitable for signing the BPTA.

  11. In its letter dated 3.7.2009, the petitioner acknowledged the decision conveyed by CTU in its letter dated 29.6.2009 and requested CTU to confirm that the pooling station would be constructed on the land offered by the petitioner and the pooling station would be connected through a LILO to Talcher-Gazuaka-Berhampur transmission line. The confirmation was sought by the petitioner to apprise its lenders. The petitioner further informed CTU that Stage I with 2x660 MW generating units was being apprised by the lenders and Phase II would be taken up at a later stage and accordingly, requested CTU to phase out the development of the Pooling Station and associated transmission lines for evacuating the generation from Phase-I of the project. The petitioner also requested CTU to indicate the value of the Bank Guarantee that would accompany BPTA and also requested for a meeting to discuss about its comments on the draft BPTA.

  12. CTU in its letter dated 21.7.2009 advised the petitioner that if it intended to modify LTOA application from 2640 MW to 1320 MW in view of the petitioner's request for phasing the development of the pooling station and associated transmission lines, the petitioner should make a fresh LTA application clearly indicating the beneficiaries and their quantum. CTU further advised the petitioner to indicate the time difference between the two phases if it was not intended to modify the LTOA. With regard to the location of the pooling station, CTU clarified that CTU had never indicated that pooling station would be developed on the land being offered by the petitioner.

  13. The petitioner vide its letter dated 11.8.2009 informed CTU that it was...

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