Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. In absence of such an declaration, distribution licensee has considered, entire energy generated and that banked as available to be utilized for wheeling for captive use and accordingly supplies to petitioner's individual unit, is first adjusted for that available for wind generated captive use and balance is billed at HT large industrial service tariff. If entire energy (so wheeled) cannot be adjusted balance is banked. Unutilised banked energy as on 31st December is considered as deemed sale to Discom under Clause 5(ii). This mechanism under certain contingency can result in HT supply billing at minimum billing. This is elaborated by the example. M/s. Balkrishna Industries as Consumer have contract demand of 3000 kVA. For billing demand of say 2952 kVA during a month, the minimum billing consumption will be 316549 kWh ('minimum energy'). If total consumption of the consumer ('consumption') is 388080 kWh that if delivered plus banked energy, duly adjusted for wheeling charges of 10% (i.e. wheeled energy) is more than 71531 kWh (i.e. 388080 - 316549). Say it is 2,00,000 kWh then out of consumption of 388080 kWh wheeled energy of 2,00,000 kWh would be adjusted and HT supply billed for 1,88,080 kWh. As this is less than minimum billing, so consumer would be billed for minimum billing (equivalent to energy consumption of 316549 kWh). Thus, consumer, in facts, gets benefit of 3,88,080 - 3,16,549 = 71,531 kWh only against 2,00,000 kWh supplied by him. In other words, these units go to Discom free of cost. If, wheeled energy is more than consumption, say wheeling energy is 4,01,320 kWh against a consumption of 3,85,080 kWh, then wheeled energy cannot be fully adjusted and these are adjusted upto consumption and balance (in this case 16,240 kWh) are banked. But in this process, consumer gets no benefit for energy wheeled upto 'minimum energy'. This is precisely the case cited for the billing month of April 05 cited by the petitioner in their letter dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure-4 of the petition). This mechanism in such extreme cases would not definitely encourage / promote wind energy generation.

57. The Appeal of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam (for short 'AVVN') a distribution Company wholly owned by the State Government of Rajasthan, has challenged the order dated 13 Apr. 07 in Review Petition No. 124 of 2007 and original order dated 04 Nov. 2006 in Petition No. 100 of 2006 passed by Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Commission/RERC'). Petition No. 100 of 2006 was preferred by Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd. (for brevity to be called as 'RSMML') a company wholly owned by the state government engaged in Mining of minerals in the State which has also set up various Captive Power Plants based on wind power, generating electricity for captive use at its different industrial sites and sale to the Appellant and / or third party. RSMML has also been an HT-consumer of the Appellant and its' predecessors since 1984 and both had entered into agreements for a specific contract load, last being on 06 Feb. 02. RSMML becoming a power producer from its various wind energy based captive power plant set up under GOR Policy dated 04 Feb. 2000 for promoting generation of Power through Non-Conventional Energy (NCE) source also signed Wheeling and Banking Agreement (WBA) dated 29 Aug. 01 with the Appellant followed by another agreement titled Purchase, Wheeling & Banking Agreement on 19 Feb. 2004. The aforesaid agreements were signed in pursuance to Govt. of Rajasthan (GOR) Policy for Promoting Generation through Non-Conventional Energy (NCE) Sources dated 04 Feb. 00 and policy for promotion of electricity generation from wind dated 30 Apr. 03.

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.

(d) GOR Policy for promotion of Electricity Generation from Wind, 2003 The objectives of this policy are to support Wind Power generation programme based on Wind resource studies and assessment and to attract investment in the power sector. It targeted a further capacity addition of 200- 250 MW. It provided pricing of generated power; wheeling; banking; exemption from Electricity Duty; Grid interfacing; metering; allotment of sites to eligible developers etc. The fiscal concessions including banking facility under GOR policy are the incentives to maximize production up to the maximum available generating capacity and any regulation to avoid paying 'minimum charges' is bound to be counter productive and disadvantageous to the generator as it will affect its revenue out of sale to AVVNL as its purchase at a special price from the RSMML. Moreover, such practice for any commercial compulsion will make the facility of banking meaningless. Further, the Commission has said that the RSMML being the generator of the power could declare as to how much of its power is needed to be wheeled to its industry in another district. It is clarified that the ratio of energy supplied from the plant to each industry of the user, RSMML can only be changed once an year within 5% of the generation allocated for captive use. In this connection Article 3.4 of the WB Agreement may be referred to. This aspect is not relevant here as the entire 5% of the generated power for the captive use including the energy that is banked during the year is being fully consumed. The consumer has no option but to draw deficit energy from AVVNL owned sources and the payment of minimum charges is linked to such energy. The agreements described in (b) & (c) above are structured on these policies and are consistent with them. It will be `irrational to search for billing procedure in GOR policies.