- (1.) THIS is a review petition filed by NTPC Limited (NTPC) seeking review of the order dated 22.4.2014 in Petition No. 184/TT/2011, wherein the transmission tariff of ATS of Pallatana Gas Based Power Project and the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station in the North Eastern Region for the tariff block 2009 -14 was allowed. The Review Petitioner is aggrieved by the directions to pay the transmission charges after the commissioning of ATS of Pallatana GPS. Brief facts of the case
(2.) POWER Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (PGCIL) had filed Petition No. 184/TT/2011 seeking transmission tariff for the ATS of Pallatana Gas Based Power Project and the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station in the North Eastern Region for the tariff block 2009 -14. The petition covered following six assets -(i) 400 kV D/C Bongaigaon TPS -Bongaigaon transmission line along with associated bays (Asset -I); (ii)132 kV D/C Silchar -Badarpur transmission line along with associated bays (Asset -II); (iii)132 kV D/C Silchar -Sirkona transmission line along with associated bays (Asset -III); (iv)200 MVA, 400/132 kV ICT at Silchar Sub -station along with associated bays (Asset -IV); (v)50 MVAR switchable line reactors for 400 kV D/C Silchar -Palatana at Silchar Sub -station along with associated bays (Asset -V) and 63 MVAR bus reactor at Silchar Sub -station along with associated bays (Asset -VI). Asset -I is associated with Bongaigaon TPS which is being developed by the Review Petitioner and assets II to VI are associated with Pallatana GBPP. As per the Investment Approval dated 26.2.2010, the said assets were scheduled to be commissioned within 34 months from the date of Investment Approval (IA). Accordingly, the assets were to be commissioned on 1.1.2013. PGCIL rescheduled the commissioning of Asset -I to 1.12.2011 as the asset was required for evacuation of power for Unit -I of Bongaigaon TPS which was agreed upon in the Quarterly Director -Level Coordination Meeting between the Review Petitioner and PGCIL held on 11.1.2011.
(3.) PGCIL , vide affidavit dated 7.8.2013 submitted that as per the decision taken in the 10th NERPC meeting, Unit -I of Bongaigaon TPS was scheduled to be commissioned in August, 2011 and the date of commissioning was subsequently revised to June, 2012/October, 2012 in the 12th NERPC meeting and further to September 2013 in the 13th NERPC meeting. PGCIL submitted that the commissioning of Bongaigaon TPS was not certain and was undergoing frequent revisions. Even though the transmission asset was ready for intended use, it was unable to provide intended services because of non -readiness of Bongaigaon TPS. PGCIL, therefore, sought approval of the Commission regarding the date of commercial operation of the transmission system under Regulation 3(12)(c) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff), Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred as "2009 Tariff Regulations"). The Review Petitioner was a party to the said petition and was issued notice. The representative of the Review Petitioner was also present during the hearing as noticed from the attendance sheet for hearing dated 1.9.2014. The Commission after taking into consideration all relevant facts came to the conclusion that even though the transmission asset was ready for use but could not be put into use as the commissioning of corresponding generation was getting delayed, which could not be attributed to PGCIL, and accordingly, the Commission approved the date of commercial operation of the transmission asset as 1.1.2013. In the impugned order, the Commission had taken note of the fact that the Review Petitioner entered into a generic Indemnification Agreement (IA) with PGCIL on 15.3.2002 according to which the Review Petitioner agreed to pay full IDC in respect of the associated transmission line for a maximum period of six months from the scheduled date of commissioning in the event of delay in commissioning of the generation project. The IA further provided that the zero date from which the indemnification mechanism would be applicable would be worked out for each of the project and mutually agreed in the Quarterly Director -Level Coordination Meeting between the Review Petitioner and PGCIL and such an agreement would become part of the IA. PGCIL submitted during the hearing of the main petition that no such agreement had been entered into in the instant case of Bongaigaon TPS. The representative of NTPC though present did not contest the submissions of PGCIL. After taking note of the submissions of PGCIL which was not contested by NTPC, the Commission decided that no such agreement existed between the parties deciding the zero date. The Commission further noted that even after declaration of the commercial operation of the Asset I with effect from 1.1.2013, the generating station is still not ready. As per the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Sharing of Inter -State Transmission Charges and Losses) Regulations, 2010 (2010 Sharing Regulations), the DICs are required to enter into Transmission Service Agreement (TSA) with PGCIL for payment of transmission charges. In the absence of the TSA, the MTSA shall be the default transmission agreement. As no agreement was entered into between the Review Petitioner and PGCIL regarding the transmission charges after the transmission asset is put into commercial operation, it was held in the impugned order as under: - "51. As per para 2.1.3 of the Model Transmission Agreement approved by the Commission, ISGS who is not a signatory to a BPTA or TSA too shall enter into this agreement and bind itself to the terms of the agreement. Therefore, NTPC is governed by the Model Transmission Agreement. Accordingly, it is directed that NTPC shall bear the transmission charges for Asset I from 1.1.2013 till commissioning of Bongaigaon TPS in line with clause (6) of Regulation 8 of the Sharing Regulations. The petitioners shall bill the transmission charges for Asset I on NTPC........";