- (1.) Adani Power Maharashtra Limited (APML) has filed a Petition for review of the Commission's Order dated 5 May, 2014 in Case No. 63 of 2014 ('Impugned Order'). i.e. the case related to suo - motu proceedings initiated by the Commission on the Report submitted by the Committee on compensatory Tariff for Tiroda power plant of APML. The Petitioner's prayers are as follows:
(2.) "a) Review the order dated 05.05.2014 in Case No. 63 of 2014 to the extent sought for in the present Petition and allow the submissions made by the Petitioners; b) Pass such other order/s as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
(3.) In its Petition, APML has contended that: 3.1 Through the present Petition, the APML has approached the Commission for the review of the impugned order dated 5 May, 2014 as there are errors apparent on face of record in the Order. And also for the reason that the Commission in para 31 of the impugned order has held that either of the parties are free to approach this Commission, if any party believes that the performance of the plant is significantly deviating from the CERC norms. 3.2 It has approached the Commission for review of impugned Order on following ground: A. Consideration of incorrect SHT/RHT rating in recommending SHR B. Consideration of incorrect CERC Regulation C. Impact of actual site conditions on SHR D. Allowing compensatory tariff only on balance quantum of supply after netting of entire 520 MW in each block E. Not considering different tariffs for Lohara Coal Block and linkage capacities. 3.3 Consideration on incorrect SHT/RHT rating in recommending Station Heat Rate 3.3.1 It is submitted by the Petitioner that at para 30 of the impugned Order, the Commission, on the basis of the CERC (terms and conditions of tariff) Regulations, 2014, which is applicable to the new generating stations with supercritical units of pressure rating of 247 kg/cm2 operating on sub -bituminous Indian coal held that Station Heat Rate (SHR) of Tiroda Power Plant of the Petitioner would be of 2151 kcal/kWh with a margin of 4.5%. 3.3.2 While holding so, the Commission erred in not considering the fact that the SHR depends not only on pressure rating but varies substantially based on Super Heat and Re Heat temperature of the boiler. In this context, it is to be noted that the SHT/RHT rating of the Petitioner's supercritical Units is 565/565 deg. C. whereas the Commission has considered SHT/RHT rating of 565/593 deg. C. while approving the SHR as 2151 kcal/kWh. 3.3.3 SHR varies drastically depending on SHT and RHT temperatures ratings for a given pressure rating of the Boiler. The Commission has failed to recognise this aspect and erroneously considered the design SHR as 2151 kCal/kWh for the purpose of computation of compensatory energy charge. The Petitioner submits that it is an error apparent on the face of the record. 3.4 Consideration of incorrect CERC Regulation 3.4.1 The CERC in its Tariff Regulations, 2014 has notified Gross SHR norm for three different sets of power generation Units depending on the time of their commissioning. The first category is the Units commissioned prior to 1.4.2009, second category being Units commissioned during 2009 -14 and third category is Units which are commissioned after to 1.4.2014. 3.4.2 In this context, it is to be noted that the Unit Nos. 2 and 3 of Petitioners power project at Tiroda, which are identified for supply of power under the PPA, have achieved COD on 30.3.2013 and 14.6.2013 respectively that is much before 1.4.2014. Designed parameters of a machine cannot be changed after manufacture and in respect of Petitioner's case the equipment has been commissioned and in service. 3.4.3 The technical expert and the Committee have taken all these factors in to consideration and accordingly stated in their report that based on CERC Tariff Regulations 2009 the SHR is 2380 kCal/kWh. The Commission has not considered all these technical aspect and come to the conclusion without properly analysing the various factors that influence the SHR. The decision of the Commission to adopt CERC Tariff Regulations 2014 to freeze the SHR as 2151 kCal/kwh with a margin of 4.5% for computation of actual energy cost is an error apparent on the face of record. 3.5 Impact of actual site conditions on SHR 3.5.1 The Technical expert has ascertained the impact of blending of imported coal and actual site conditions on SHR. Also moisture content in coal and partial loading of generating units are also adversely impacting the SHR of the plant. 3.5.2 Non -consideration of the above parameters while approving the SHR are an error apparent on the face of the record and the Impugned Order needs to be reviewed particularly on the aspect of appropriate SHR to be considered for computation of compensatory tariff. 3.6 Allowing compensatory tariff only on balance quantum of supply after netting of entire 520 MW in each block 3.6.1 While approving compensatory tariff for 800 MW, the Commission has considered netting of the energy corresponding to entire 520 MW in each block. This decision of the Commission is technically not feasible for implementation for the reasons explained below: a. The normative availability under the PPA is only 80% and the Petitioner is required to achieve availability of 80% to recover full capacity charges. This implies that the Petitioner is required to offer generation capacity of only 80% of 520 MW (or 1320 MW) and not the entire contracted capacity for recovery of capacity charges. b. Contracted quantity of coal supply under FSA entered into with CIL is only 90% of normative requirement. c. In view of above, the assumption that entire 520 MW would be generated using linkage coal received under FSA is factually incorrect and it is an error apparent on the face of record. d. Operating GCV range for Unit 2 and 3 of Tiroda Power Plant is 3331 -4527 kCal/kg and the best efficiency with optimum reliability is achieved with design GCV of 3927 kCal/kg. However, based on the actual coal supplies received so far by the Petitioner for Tiroda project, the GCV of coal received from SECL under the FSA is in the range of 3200 -3700 kCal/kg which is lower than design GCV. The Petitioner is therefore forced to use imported coal in order to operate the machine nearer to design GCV. This implies that the Petitioner has to blend imported coal with linkage coal for even generating 520 MW. e. All the bunkers in the power plant are filled with blended coal and depending on the quantum of power required to be generated the flow of coal to boiler is regulated. There is no scope for operating the power plant with either linkage coal alone or imported coal alone and the generation is always based on blended coal. The decision of the Commission that initial 520 MW power supply would be based on linkage coal is therefore incorrect. f. Keeping in view the technical limitation, the operation of both the Units at as aggregate capacity of 520 MW is not possible. The minimum technical loading is 400 MW for each of the Unit 2 and Unit 3 of the Tiropda power plant and operation below this limit requires oil support with any coal leave alone linkage coal. 3.6.2 In view of above, holding that initial 520 MW power supply would not be eligible for compensation is not justifiable and is an error apparent on the face of the record. 3.7 Non considering different tariffs for Lohara Coal Block and Linkage capacities 3.7.1 It is an admitted fact that cost of generation is not the same for different fuel sources; it changes from source to source depending on fuel parameters such as its price, GCV, transportation cost etc. The bid submitted by the Petitioner was premised on availability of coal from the Lohara Captive Coal Block and balance from long term coal linkage to be obtained from Coal India Limited. 3.7.2 The Petitioner has submitted all the supporting documents for the assumptions considered in the bid to the Committee. The expert committee in its report submitted to the Commission has specifically noted that the bid assumptions are substantiated by the Petitioner with supporting documents. 3.7.3 The Committee in its report has observed that the bid stream of Lohara coal block portion was cross subsidising the energy cost of linkage portion. Further the Committee felt that the principle of fixation of compensation shall reflect the true position. As per the methodology recommended by the Committee, the actual energy cost of 800 MW capacity shall be compared with the energy charge arrived based on Petitioner's bid assumptions for Lohara Coal Block and in respect of 520 MW capacity linked to CIL linkage, tariff for linkage coal as embedded in quoted/bid tariff will continue to be under operation. 3.7.4 The Commission in para 35 of the impugned Order has accepted the Committee report barring few deviations in operational parameters and the sharing of RoE. Whereas the observation of the Commission in respect of (i) adopting the mechanism as per para 151 of Order dated 21.08.2012 in Case No. 68 of 2012 and (ii) not considering two separate tariff for Lohara and linkage portions is contradictory to the para 35 of the Order which is an error apparent on the face of record. 3.8 In view of above reasons, the impugned Order needs to be reviewed by the Commission with regard to the design SHR to be considered and on the methodology to be adopted for arriving at the energy and tariff corresponding to 520 MW. ;