Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

d) The advice of 2nd Meeting of Validation Committee dated 20.06.2018 is neither arbitrary nor detrimental to the interests of OPGC and hence does not merit interference;
e) Neither PGCIL nor OPGC had commissioned their respective scope of work under the LTA Agreement as of 30.08.2017 - alleged deemed COD of OPGC-

Jharsuguda Line. Even after a perusal of CEA Energisation Certificate dated 18.09.2017 for OPGC's scope of work, it is unclear whether OPGC/ PGCIL had completed their respective scope of work necessary to put OPGC-Jharsuguda Line in use. Even though PGCIL's scope of work was completed on 22.11.2017, trial run for the OPGC-Jharsuguda Line was completed on 20.12.2017 - which implies that OPGC's scope of work was not complete as of 18.09.2017. Accordingly, PGCIL and OPGC to pay transmission charges to OGPTL for the period between 30.08.2017 and 22.11.2017 in a 50:50 ratio;

In view of the above, there can be no levy of transmission charges before LTA operationalisation when the OGPTL Line has not served its intended purpose of operationalizing OPGC's LTA.

4.8 For evacuation beyond PGClL's Jharsuguda Substation, several elements of the common transmission system were to be commissioned by PGCIL and OGPTL. Both these entities did not commission all such other pre- requisite elements till the relinquishment of OPGC's LTA on 13.12.2018. Between the alleged deemed COD of the OGPTL Line (30.08.2017) and relinquishment by OPGC (13.12.2018), OGPTL Line was therefore redundant for evacuation from OPGC's Plant and failed to serve its intended purpose of effectuating OPGC's LTA. No transmission charges Appeal No.16 of 2020 and IA Nos. 27 & 183 of 2020 could have been levied on OPGC before LTA operationalisation in these circumstances. This has been ignored by the Impugned Order without any discussion or citing any justification whatsoever. 4.9 Under the Connectivity Regulations, "connectivity" is defined as the state of being connected to the Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS). CTU has itself previously admitted that there is no separate charge for connectivity. 4.10 In the Impugned Order, CERC's interpretation is that OPGC consciously agreed to pay transmission charges solely for the OGPTL Line irrespective of LTA operationalisation (or CTU's ability to operationalize LTA) implies that the CTU could even completely abandon the rest of the system strengthening planned for operationalizing OPGC's LTA and yet levy transmission charges on OPGC for the OGPTL Line alone. This, in itself, is in the teeth of the composite nature of the transaction and is accordingly bad in law. CERC's approach obliterates provisions of the LTA Agreement as well as the Connection Agreement. It is settled law that in business transactions the law desires to effect by the implication such business efficacy in the transaction as must have been intended by both parties who are businessmen.

4.24 On 12.08.2019 (before COD), OPGC filed Petition No. 380/MP/2019 inter alia seeking closure of the bus breaker sectionaliser between Units 3 and

4. On 29.10.2019, the Eastern Regional Load Despatch Centre (ERLDC) allowed OPGC to operate in common bus mode during the pendency of ERLDC's Petition No. 334/MP/2019 (filed on 17.09.2019) and OPGC's Petition No. 380/MP/2019 before CERC. Thus, OPGC's Plant is evacuating power to GRIDCO through OPGC-Lapanga 400 kV D/C Transmission Line, a part of the STU network, and the entire power is being scheduled by the State Load Despatch Centre. Further, there is no scheduling of power through OGPTL line and OPGC is not using the OGPTL Line. OPGC has no inter-state PPA either. Resultantly, the power flow through OGPTL Line is GRIDCO power and the Line has been used as Odisha's inter-state tie line since the closure of the bus coupler. It is vehemently denied that OPGC power flows through OGPTL Line. Accordingly, the OGPTL Line is no more stranded and becomes a part of ISTS. This is therefore a fit case for the inclusion of the Line in the POC pool. As per the extant regulatory scheme, the transmission charges for OGPTL Line should be paid by its present user(s). This position is also supported by Note 3 to Schedule: 1 of OGPTL's TSA dated 20.11.2015, wherein the signatory Long Term Transmission Customers have agreed for the inclusion of the OGPTL Line under the POC pool. This is also borne out from this Tribunal's Order dated 18.06.2020.

4.28 OPGC is not liable to pay any ISTS transmission charges when operating in the closed bus condition post relinquishment. Presently (under the closed bus condition), no OPGC power is scheduled to flow through the OGPTL Line. As per Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid Code) Regulations, 2010 (IEGC): since more than 50% power is allocated to the host State of Odisha, Odisha SLDC is scheduling evacuation of power from both Units of OPGC's Plant solely via the STU network (OPGC-Lapanga 400 kV D/C Transmission Line). In terms of Clauses 1.1, 32(a) and3.2(d) of OPGC's PPA dated 04.01.2011, GRIDCO is liable to evacuate its share of power from OPGC's Plant on an ex-bus basis. Accordingly, applicable transmission charges for use of STU network Appeal No.16 of 2020 and IA Nos. 27 & 183 of 2020 are being settled by GRIDCO with the STU for OPGC's entire Plant capacity of 1320 MW (net ex-bus injection approximately 1245 MW). 4.29 Under the closed bus condition, neither any part of ISTS is being used for wheeling electricity from OPGC nor can any ISTS transmission losses possibly be caused on account of wheeling of power through the STU network. It is settled by an earlier Order of the CERC: