Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. After going through all the relevant documents and written submissions and hearing the arguments of Learned Counsel of the Appellant as well as the Respondents, our observations are as follows:-

i) The State Commission has proceeded on the basis that delay in the dedicated transmission line to be laid down from the power plant of Respondent no.2 to Varsana sub station is attributable to the Appellant. The State Commission has found against the Appellant that it has failed in his duty as STU to have properly advised Respondent no.2 in regard to the nature of the line to be laid down namely 220 KV line instead of 400 KV DC line to Varsana sub station. The delay in route approval and other Appeal no. 6 of 2015 studies for connectivity to Varsana sub station, and the delay in approval under Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and publishing of public notice are all attributable to GETCO. Further, the State Commission has proceeded on the basis of the connectivity of the power plant through the dedicated line upto Varsana sub station was that of the Appellant. It amounts to as if the Appellant should have itself laid down the transmission line to Bhadreshwar power plant in the discharge of its functions as the State Transmission Utility under Section 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or as State Load Despatch Centre under Section 32 and Section 33 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as now sought to be urged by the Respondent no.2. The observations in paragraphs 12.12 and 12.13 of the impugned order dated 21.10.2014 relate only to conversion of the 400 KV DC line upto Varsana substation to 220 KV line upto Varsana sub station and not with regard to function of the Appellant to give connectivity at the bus bar of the Bhadreshwar power plant.

ix) It was then found by the Appellant that the 220 KV Mokha sub station could not evacuate the power of 270 MW from Bhadreshwar plant. Further, Mokha sub station was essentially for Appeal no. 6 of 2015 the evacuation of power from the wind projects being commissioned in the Kutch area. Thereafter, in order to mitigate the total cost, Respondent no.2 and the Appellant agreed that the Respondent no.2 may install a dedicated 220 KV line from Bhadreshwar to Varsana, partly along with the another 220 KV line being established by the Appellant from Mokha to Varsana, install a split bus bar and get connectivity to the 400 KV sub station at Varsana of the Appellant. This was pursuant to the Respondent's request vide communication dated 28.06.2012 and finally agreed to by the Appellant on 07.08.2012. The Appellant had set out the terms and conditions for allowing the above namely conversion of the dedicated line from 400 KV DC line to 220 KV line from Bhadreshwar to Varsana along with laying down of another Mokha line of the Appellant to Varsana, split bus bar etc. vide communications dated 07.08.2012 and 29.08.2012. Thereafter, a detailed survey report was carried out and approval was granted on 08.01.2013.

xviii) Keeping in view the interest of stockholders and the system study outcome, vide letter dated 07.08.2012 Appellant agreed for conversion to 220 KV line with certain technical requirements/modifications to be carried out by the Respondent no.2 and subsequently vide letter dated 29.08.2012 even allowed laying of their line along with the existing Mokha lines upto Varsana sub station to save Respondent no.2's time on obtaining Right of Way for their dedicated line after Respondent no.2 agreed for split bus bar arrangement.

(c) keep accounts of the quantity of electricity transmitted through the State grid;
(d) exercise supervision and control over the intra-State transmission system; and
(e) be responsible for carrying out real time operations for grid control and dispatch of electricity within the State through secure and economic operation of the State grid in accordance with the Grid Standards and the State Grid Code."

It appears from the arguments put forth by the learned Counsel of Respondent no.2 that the Appellant ought to have acted in accordance with the above statutory obligations and functions as mentioned in Section 32 and 39 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as quoted above and provided the transmission system upto to the bus bar of the generating station instead of asking the Respondent no.2 to Appeal no. 6 of 2015 construct any dedicated line upto Varsana sub station from Bhadreshwar power plant i.e. dedicated transmission line. Even Para 12.12 of the impugned order deals with the deficiencies on the part of the above STU in acting as nodal agency in the context of the STU having not advised the Respondent no.2 to construct the 220 KV dedicated line and having advised construction of 400 KV DC line for evacuation of power from Bhadreshwar to Varsana and thereby subjecting the Respondent no.2 to higher cost. The above contentions of Respondent no. 2 and the findings of the State Commission are not correct as the Respondent no.2 wanted specifically the interconnection through Varsana sub station of the Appellant through their 400 KV DC dedicated line upto Varsana sub station. This was in the context of Respondent no.2 planning construction of an additional 1200 MW power plant i.e. aggregate capacity of 1500 MW including 300 MW being established. The Respondent no.2 continued to maintain the above till February 2012. The claim for conversion to 220 KV line from the 400 KV DC line occurred only after the above. Accordingly, the Appellant cannot be Appeal no. 6 of 2015 held accountable for not having advised the construction of a 220 KV line from the beginning. In any event, it is a choice of generating station to decide on the nature of the dedicated transmission line. The Respondent no.2 had specifically sought for the 400 KV DC line connecting to Varsana sub station.