NORTHERN REGIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE Vs. UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) IT has been submitted that the first respondent, namely, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited has been recklessly overdrawing power from the Northern Regional Grid in violation of the provisions of Indian Electricity Grid Code and despite the instructions to the contrary from the petitioner. IT is alleged that the first respondent's conduct has the tendency to endanger the grid security, and has the propensity to cause irreparable damage. IT is further alleged that the first respondent has failed to make payments of Ul charges for the overdrawals, and the amount outstanding against the first respondent stood at Rs. 203.62 crore for the period up to 17.7.2005, which has increased further. IT has been pointed out that despite an undertaking given by the representative of the first respondent in the earlier proceedings in Petition No. 33/2005 filed by fifth respondent (Delhi Transco), the first respondent has failed to make payments of Ul charges.
(2.) We have heard the representatives of the parties present at the hearing. Shri S.K. Soonee for the petitioner submitted that the amount of Ul charges due up to the first week of October 2005 stood at nearly 390 crore. It was submitted that the first respondent continued to overdraw without heeding to the instructions from the petitioner even at frequency of 48.50 Hz and below. Shri Soonee placed before us the state of drawal by different constituents of Northern Region on 10.8.2005
The representative of the first respondent submitted that it was forced to overdraw power from the Northern Regional Grid since some of the generating stations of NTPC supplying power to the first respondent were under forced outage for a considerable period. He submitted that during the week immediately preceding the date of hearing, the first respondent had not resorted to any overdrawal but had drawn less than its allocated capacity. He had assured that the first respondent would make all possible efforts to contain overdrawals in future, without making any express commitment. On the question of payment of Ul charges, it was submitted that the Commission's decision to enhance rate of Ul at Rs. 5.70/kWh is under challenge before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. He, however, admitted the liability of the first respondent to pay Ul charges at the rate of Rs. 4.20/kWh, that is, the pre-revised rate. The representative of the first respondent could not quantify even the amount computed on the basis of Ul rate of Rs. 4.20/kWh. Neither could he give any indication regarding to the time for the settlement of Ul account. We had asked the representative of the first respondent to give us a firm date for full payment of Ul charges. He was unable to make any commitment since, according to him, this decision was to be taken by the top management. We do not appreciate this kind of attitude for the reason that the person detailed for hearing before the Commission has to be suitably briefed on the issues raised.
(3.) WE direct the petitioner to place on record the drawal pattern of all constituents of Northern Region for at least 10 days, at low frequency, which shall include period prior to when the generating stations alleged by the first respondent were under forced outage.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.