Determination of cost of power generation for Dongamahua captive power plant of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. from FY till FY

Transcription

1 Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Ph , Fax: cserc.sec.cg@nic.in Petition No. 47 of 2015(M) In the Matter of Determination of cost of power generation for Dongamahua captive power plant of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. from FY till FY M/s Jindal Steel & Power Limited Petitioner Present: Narayan Singh, Chairman Vinod Shrivastava, Member ORDER (Passed on 21 st January, 2016) This petition is filed by the petitioner for determination of cost of power generation for Dongamahua captive power plant of the petitioner company from FY to FY With reference to order dated in petition no. 12 of 2014 (T), this petition is preferred by the petitioner. In that order the Commission had passed the following orders:- 67. Now that JSPL has been allowed a considerable time to file the segregated audited account but same is still to be filed. Hence, we have no option other than to reduce the tariff to Rs per unit. 68. Therefore, we fix a tariff of Rs. 2.50/- with effect from 1 st January 2015 with terms and conditions of original agreement signed between consumers of JIP and JSPL subject to condition that same shall be adjusted retrospectively on either side after truing up of ARR on submission of proper data by the JSPL. 69. JSPL is directed to file the petition for ARR and retail tariff for FY along with the segregated audited account since the date of issue of the license for true up of ARR of previous years. Page 1 of 6

2 70. JSPL is also directed to file an application for determination of tariff of it s CPP since the financial year from which it has charged the Commission s determined tariff to it s consumers of JIP. Before passing the above order, the Commission had considered the views taken by the Hon ble APTEL, in it s judgment dated , in appeal no. 89 of The JSPL has filed a review petition against the order dated , which was registered as petition no. 07 of 2015(M) and decided vide order dated and ultimately the review petition was rejected on the ground that, this Commission is not at all empowered to review or alter the decision of Hon ble Tribunal. Hon ble Tribunal, in judgment, passed in appeal no 89 of 2012, has held that power requirement of JSPL distribution business has to be in accordance with MOU with the State Govt. and licence application. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition to comply the direction of the Commission as given in order dated The Commission, before passing order dated , has observed the APTEL s order in appeal no. 89 of 2012, in which, the APTEL has directed the Commission, to re-determine the power purchase cost of distribution business of the petitioner company. The directions given by APTEL in para 64 of the judgment is mentioned below:- (a) The first issue relating to surplus power from the Captive Power Plant of Jindal Steel is decided in favour of the Appellant. The State Commission is directed to re-determine the power purchase cost as per the directions given in Paragraph-23 of this Judgment. (b) The Second Issue regarding delay in filing the tariff petition is allowed in favour of the Appellant with the directions to the State Commission not to pass on the burden on account of delay in filing of the tariff Petition by Jindal Steel to the consumers in the form of increase in tariff due to carrying cost. Page 2 of 6

3 (c) The third issue regarding segregated accounts is also decided in favour of the Appellant with the directions to the State Commission not to entertain any Petition of Jindal Steel for enhancement of tariff in the event of failure to submit the segregated accounts as per the directions of the State Commission in future. 6. Findings of APTEL in para 23 of the judgment is described below:- 23. In view of the above, we are constrained to conclude that the State Commission s finding on this issue is wrong and the same is liable to be set aside. The State Commission should have examined the pattern of surplus power available from the captive power plant after meeting the requirement of captive load of the Steel Plant and load pattern in the licensed area of Jindal Steel and should have considered part of energy supplied in the licensed area from the Captive Power Plant of Jindal Steel. Unfortunately, this has not been done. Therefore, we remand the matter with directions to the State Commission to carry out the exercise and evaluate the energy from the Captive Power Plant that should have been booked to distribution business of Jindal Steel at the cost of the generation tariff of Jindal Steel s Captive Power Plant. The consequential relief may be passed on to the Appellant and other consumers. The State Commission should also facilitate increasing the contract demand of Jindal Steel from 1 MW to 80 MW from CSPDCL as sought by Jindal Steel for meeting the increased load of Jindal Steel. This will help in availability of continuous and sustainable supply from the Captive Power Plant to Jindal Industrial Park in future. 7. Hon ble APTEL has held in the judgment in para 18 and 19 regarding demand of power of Jindal Industrial Park, surplus power availability from the JSPL s captive power plant etc. which are reproduced below:- 18. Thus, Jindal Steel has given the following reasons for non-supply of power from its captive power plant to its Page 3 of 6

4 licensed area: (a) Increase in demand of electricity in its Steel Plant due to expansion of its steel plant. (b) Refusal of CSPDCL to increase contract demand for supply of power to its steel plant consequent to its increase in the power demand of its Steel Plant. (c) Fluctuation in quantum of surplus power available from its Captive Power Plant due to fluctuating load of its Steel Plant whereas Jindal Industrial Park required supply on continuous and sustainable basis. Therefore, the surplus power from its captive Power Plant could not be utilised in Jindal Industrial Park. 19. We are not convinced by the above reasons projected by the Jindal Steel due to the following: (a) The proposal given by Jindal Steel for distribution licence keeping in view the future demand of 300 MW clearly indicated source of supply of 90 MW from its Captive Power Plant and 210 MW from the 1000 MW Power Plant of Jindal Power, knowing fully well the functioning demand of its Steel Plant. (b) The demand of Jindal Industrial Park has so far, not reached the expected level of 300 MW and is presently of the order of 100 MW. (c) The surplus availability from the sample half hourly data submitted by Jindal Steel indicated power availability varying from 20 to 80 MW. On the other hand, the average surplus power from the annual surplus energy indicated in the chart above is more than 100 MW (931 MU for FY 11 translates into average surplus of 106 MW and 945 MU for FY 10 translates into average surplus of 108 MW). (d) The load pattern in the Jindal Industrial park will not be constant and will also have variations during different hours of the day. (e) The surplus availability for Captive Power Plant can be made continuous and sustainable by Jindal Steel by contracting additional power from the CSPDCL, the State distribution licensee for its Steel Plant. According to Page 4 of 6

5 Jindal Steel, they applied for increase in their contract demand to Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board on However, Board refused to sanction additional load vide their letter dated We feel that Jindal Steel should have approached the State Commission if the Board had refused to grant additional contract demand. Instead of arranging additional load from the State distribution licensee, Jindal Steel simply proceeded to enter into contract for supply of additional surplus power of 50 MW from its captive Power Plant to CSPDCL. 8. After hearing the petitioner on the point of admission of this case, we had passed orders on admission on , in which the petitioner was directed to file complete petition for determination cost of generation tariff of all it s captive power plants, situated at Dongamahua and Raigarh, which is according to the above referred judgment of Hon ble APTEL. 9. Despite the order, the petitioner has not complied the order and therefore, a reminder no dated was sent to the petitioner with direction to comply with the order positively by Though, the reminder has been received by the petitioner, no step has been taken for compliance of the order. In this situation, we have decided on to issue last reminder to the petitioner. Accordingly, last reminder no dated has been served upon the petitioner with direction to comply the order dated within 15 days with a warning in case of default, it shall be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say on the matter and we proceed accordingly. 11. The last reminder was served upon the petitioner on , but till the date the petitioner has not filed complete petition for compliance of the order dated However, the petitioner, vide letter dated , has informed that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order dated , passed by the Commission in petition no. 07 of Page 5 of 6

6 2015(M), in which the directions, given in order dated in petition no. 47 of 2015(M) and 48 of 2015(M) has been reiterated. The appeal is listed for hearing by the APTEL on With the letter the petitioner has also enclosed order dated of the Court-II of the APTEL. It is observed from perusal of the order, no stay has been granted by the APTEL against the proceedings pending before this Commission. It is also appeared that delay in filing appeal is yet to be condoned and the appeal is not admitted yet. In this situation, it would not be appropriate to defer the proceedings of this case till the disposal of the said appeal. 12. We feel that, despite given several opportunities, the petitioner has failed to file complete petition as directed by us, in accordance with the Hon ble APTEL s judgment in appeal no. 89 of Grant of further opportunities or deferment of the proceedings, on the basis of an unadmitted and unregistered appeal, would amount destruction of principles of natural justice, hence, we are constrained to dismiss the petition for non prosecution. (VINOD SHRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (NARAYAN SINGH) CHAIRMAN Page 6 of 6