Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Dispute and Issues raised

60. The dispute is primarily pivoting on the revised accounting procedure for energy exchange between the Appellant on one hand and RSMML as Captive Generator-cumHT- consumer on the other highlighting on the issue of "Minimum Charges" not being paid for under the earlier procedure and inter-alia relates to issues that:

(a) As per the Appellant's claim the 'Banking' of energy with it is allowed only when the energy generated and wheeled in the grid is more than the captive consumption of RSMML. The energy generated and wheeled by the Captive generator unless found surplus to the captive consumption is not eligible to be banked and therefore, the generated and wheeled energy is to be first adjusted against the Captive consumption to determine the bankable energy.

Composite Billing Methodology:

71. The billing procedure for exchange of units of energy is based on setting-off in kind the units exported to licensee from those imported from the licensee and working out the energy charges on the basis of net energy units imported from the grid. The prevailing billing methodology till Oct. 2005 admittedly is to first adjust 'minimum charges' against the captive consumption of RSMML. Thereafter, the Appellant used to adjust the generated and wheeled energy against the remaining actual captive consumption and balance left, if any, of wheeled energy was banked with it to be later released during lean season of wind generation for captive use of RSMML. It is submitted by RSMML that due to existing favourable natural wind-flow profile (six months from Jan. to Jun.) about 70% of the total energy is generated during the said period and 30% is generated in the remaining lean-season-period (six months from Jul. to Dec.). Accordingly, the energy banked with AVVNL is released back to RSMML for meeting the shortfall in captive consumption requirements. The said procedure has resulted into denial of 'minimum charges' to AVVNL as provided for in the terms and conditions of HT-contract.

Month Captive Consumption Generation wheeled for captive use Units drawn from DISCOM Min. Units required to be consumed Minimum Charges (Units) I II (I-II) July 617184 334984 282200 482544 200344 August 579168 215324 363844 482544 118700 September,02 547200 156462 390738 482544 91806 Without going any further, the above figures demonstrate that in the above months the energy units drawn from AVVNL owned source of the grid is less than the specified Minimum units and, therefore, the claim made by the Respondent No. 2 is invalid. The data given by RSMML in column of 'Captive Consumption' of the above table is the total recorded consumption which includes captive generation plus drawl from AVVNL owned sources and has compared the minimum charges determined as per HT-consumer agreement with the total recorded consumption whereas it has to be compared only with what has been drawn from AVVNL owned sources. Therefore to obtain units drawn from AVVNL owned sources the total captive consumption for each month in column-I is to be reduced by the units of generation wheeled for captive use in column -II. In all the months taken for examination, the energy drawn from the AVVNL -owned sources are found to be less than the corresponding minimum units. Hence the minimum charges as indicated in the last column of the above table are liable to be charged from the Respondent No.2, RSMML.

(i) If balance captive consumption is greater than captive generation (i.e.C> D) then billing is = C-D

(ii) If captive generation is greater than balance consumption (i.e. D> C) then the energy units equivalent to D-C is banked; No minimum charges.

Minimum charges, B, being deemed consumption and not recorded by meter is to be added to recorded consumption A i.e. [C = (A+B) -D] i.e. [(A-D) + B]. This is equivalent to saying that the recorded consumption at load site is first adjusted against the energy generated and wheeled for captive use (that amounts to energy drawn from the of Discom sources of grid) and the balance then added to minimum charges B for billing. This exactly turns out to be the revised procedure which is sought to be introduced by the Appellant. It may be further stated that whether the minimum charge is adjusted in the beginning with the captive consumption as in the pre-existing procedure or the same is adjusted in the end (as in the revised procedure) it should not make any difference in the result provided the minimum charges i.e. B is considered as deemed consumption and is treated as such. Respondent No. 2, RSMML in its written submission has illustrated the mechanism of billing by taking two examples, one where consumption is greater than the captive generation and second, in which the consumption is less than the captive generation: