Petition No. 8 of 2006
Date of hearing: 27.6.2006
Date of Order: 14.8.2006

The petition has been filed stating that the order of the Commission in Petition No.12 of 2003 does not refer to charges payable during peak load hours and that the final order of the Commission in that petition may be implemented retrospectively. Petition No.12 of 2003 had been filed by the petitioner for wheeling power to the Bhatinda unit of the petitioner from their 24 MW Captive Power Plant (CPP) at Ropar. During pendency of that petition an interim order dated October 13, 2004 was passed by the Commission and the petitioner was allowed to wheel power on payment of interim aggregate charges @ 50 paise per unit to the Board for the power injected by the petitioner into the Board’s system subject to the charges being finally determined by the Commission. The petitioner was also allowed to draw energy at Bhatinda Plant after adjustment of energy losses @6% of the energy injected into PSEB system till the extent of losses is finally determined by the ! Commission. It was further ordered that all payments made and losses adjusted till then would be retrospectively liable to correction as per the final order of the Commission. That petition was ultimately decided on January 25, 2006 alongwith other similar cases with the final order interalia determining T&D losses at 11%.

It is stated in the present petition that during peak load hours the petitioner draws power at Bhatinda equal to power injected at Ropar after accounting for T&D losses. As the petitioner is thus consuming only its own generated power, peak load exemption charges (PLEC) are not leviable. It is further stated that wheeling power from Ropar to Bhatinda was started w.e.f. April 29, 2005 in accordance with the interim order dated October 13, 2004 of the Commission on payment of wheeling charges @ 50 paise per unit with 6% T&D losses whereas the Commission in its final order dated January 25, 2006 has fixed T&D losses at 11%. It is now prayed that peak load exemption charges may not be levied and the PSEB be directed to implement the final order retrospectively w.e.f. April 29, 2005 and the adjustment on this account should be made for the interim period. The petition was admitted on April 3, 2006.

The Board filed a reply to the petition on April 25, 2006 stating therein that PLEC will have to be levied on the power drawn at Bhatinda during peak load hours as in the event of tripping of the T.G.Set of the petitioner at Ropar, the petitioner would continue to draw power at Bathinda even during peak load hours while the Bathinda plant will not have any information of the tripping at Ropar. It is also stated in the reply that there is no valid ground for seeking application of the order retrospectively.

The petitioner filed a rejoinder on May 15, 2006 in which it is stated that in furtherance of the Commission’s interim order dated October 13, 2004, the petitioner wheeled 167 LUs from Ropar to Bhatinda Plant from April 2005 upto February 2006. The difference of T&D losses of 6% as allowed in the interim order and 11% as finally determined may be allowed to be injected in addition to the 11% T & D Losses till the time the energy equivalent to 5% of 167 LUs is fed into the Grid. The Board filed reply to the submissions made by the petitioner in their rejoinder in which it was stated that the prayer of the petitioner may be rejected.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that PLEC may not be levied on the petitioner for the power drawn at Bhatinda Plant when equal power is injected at Ropar during peak load hours. The petitioner has further argued that it was specifically mentioned in the interim order dated October 13, 2004 that all payments made and losses adjusted would be liable to be adjusted as per final order retrospectively. The representative of the Board admitted that arrangements are in place for accurate measurement of power injected at Ropar and drawn at Bathinda.

The arguments of the parties have been heard. The Commission is of the considered view that there would be no justification for levy of PLEC so long as power drawn at Bathinda was equivalent to the power injected at Ropar after accounting for transmission losses. However, in the event of the petitioner’s Ropar Plant tripping during peak load hours, levy of PLEC would be justified for that period alone. Since adequate metering is available both at the point of injection at Ropar and drawal at Bathinda there should be no difficulty for PSEB to determine as to when PLEC are to be levied.

The Commission further notes that its interim order dated 13.10.2004 specifically mentions that all payments made and losses adjusted would be retrospectively reviewed in terms of its final order. In view of this clear direction, there is little doubt that the final order of 25.1.2006 passed in the Petition No.12/2004 is retrospectively applicable. Since transmission losses in the final order have been determined at 11% as against 6% mentioned in the interim order, the petitioner can either make payment for higher losses or agree to pump in 5% additional power till such time as energy equivalent to 5% of 167 LUs is fed into the grid. The latter course is eminently more advantageous specially in a situation of power shortage and also suitably compensates the Board. The Commission, accordingly, accedes to the request of the petitioner to be permitted to inject 5% additional power to make up the earlier deficit.