Petition No. 1302 of 2013 In the matter of - sldcguj Order in... · Petition No. 1302 of 2013 In the matter of: ... Vadilal Industries Limited ... Videocon Industries Limited

1

BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

GANDHINAGAR

Petition No. 1302 of 2013

In the matter of:

In the matter of petition under GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State

Open Access) Regulations, 2011 for determination of Additional Surcharge

payable by Open Access consumers availing power under open access.

Petitioner : Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited

Represented by : Learned Advocate Shri M.G. Ramchandran,

alongwith S/Shri K.P. Jangid and V.T. Patel.

Co- Petitioner No. 1 : Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Represented by : Ms. M.M. Marathe and Shri Umesh Parikh.

Co- Petitioner No. 2 : Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Represented by : Shri Kamal Sindhi.

Co- Petitioner No. 3 : Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Represented by : Shri J. J. Gandhi.

Co- Petitioner No. 4 : Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited

Represented by : Shri B.V. Shah.

Versus

Respondent No. 1 : M.D. Inducto Cast Private Limited

Represented By : Nobody was present.

2

Respondent No. 2 : Garg Casteels Private Limited


Respondent No. 3 : RSK Industries Private Limited


Respondent No. 4 : Sintex Industries Private Limited


Respondent No. 5 : Hans Industries Private Limited


Respondent No. 6 : Arvind Limited

Represented By : Shri Hemen Joshi.

Respondent No. 7 : Shree Durga Syntex Private Limited


Respondent No. 8 : JK Paper Limited


Respondent No. 9 : Pioneer Syntex Private Limited


Respondent No. 10 : Mohit Industries Private Limited

Represented By : Shri Hiren Bhatt.

Respondent No. 11 : Laxcon Steels Limited


Respondent No. 12 : Federation of Kutch Industries Associations

3

Represented By : Advocate N. D. Chhaya.

Respondent No. 13 : Reliance Industries Limited

Represented By : Learned Advocates S/Shri R.S. Sanjanwala and Shri

Gaurav Thakore along with Jayant Roktar.

Respondent No. 14 : UltraTech Cement

Represented By : Shri K.K. Sukhadia.

Respondent No. 15 : Umiya Ceramics Private Limited


Respondent No. 16 : Sentosa Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 17 : Birla Century


Respondent No. 18 : Federation of Gujarat Industries

Represented By : Shri R. N. Purohit.

Respondent No. 19 : Senso Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 20 : Sorento Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 21 : Simpolo Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 22 : Sims Ceramics Private Limited

4


Respondent No. 23 : Real Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 24 : Ramoji Granite Limited


Respondent No. 25 : New Pearl Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 26 : Jet Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 27 : Ajanta Manufacturing Limited


Respondent No. 28 : Mega Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 29 : Antique Mabronite Private Limited


Respondent No. 30 : Sunshine Tiles Company Private Limited


Respondent No. 31 : Sunora Tiles Private Limited


Respondent No. 32 : Tirthak Paper Mill Private Limited


5

Respondent No. 33 : Simola Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 34 : Platina Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 35 : Milano Papers Private Limited


Respondent No. 36 : Famous Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 37 : Vita Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 38 : Vadilal Industries Limited


Respondent No. 39 : Confederation of Indian Industries


Respondent No. 40 : Simolex Ceramics Private Limited


Respondent No. 41 : Comet Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 42 : Coral Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 43 : Lorenzo Vitrified Tiles Private Limited

6


Respondent No. 44 : Elica Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 45 : Max Granito Pvt. Ltd.


Respondent No. 46 : Varmora Granito Private Limited


Respondent No. 47 : Silk Touch Vitrified Private Limited


Respondent No. 48 : Gujarat Granito Manufacturer’s Association


Respondent No. 49 : Mono Steel India Limited


Respondent No. 50 : United Phosphorus Limited, Vapi.


Respondent No. 51 : Transpek-Silox Industries Limited


Respondent No. 52 : United Phosphorus Ltd., Ankleshwar


Respondent No. 53 : Nilkanth Concast Private Limited


7

Respondent No. 54 : Essar Steel India Limited

Represented By : Advocate Sahil Shah.

Respondent No. 55 : Ambuja Intermediates Limited

Represented By : Shri D. S.Doshi.

Respondent No. 56 : AIA Engineering Limited

Represented By : Learned Advocate Shri Gaurav Mathur.

Respondent No. 57 : Videocon Industries Limited


Respondent No. 58 : Regent Granito (India) Limited


Respondent No. 59 : Deepak Nitrite Limited


Respondent No. 60 : Mafatlal Industries Limited


Respondent No. 61 : Gujarat Sidhee Cement Limited

Represented By : Learned Advocate Shri Gaurav Mathur

Respondent No. 62 : L & T Special Steel and Heavy Forgings


Respondent No. 63 : Spectrum Dyes and Chemicals Private Limited


Respondent No. 64 : Rajashree Polyfil

8


Respondent No. 65 : Shah Alloys Limited


Respondent No. 66 : Gondal Chambers of Commerce and Industry


Respondent No. 67 : Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited

Represented By : Shri Pradeep Dhir.

Respondent No. 68 : Devika Fibres Private Limited


Respondent No. 69 : Fag Bearings India Limited


Respondent No. 70 : Shree Alkali and Chemicals


Respondent No. 71 : Gujarat Polyfilms Private Limited


Respondent No. 72 : S. Kumars Nationwide Limited


Respondent No. 73 : Air Liquid India Holding Private Limited


Respondent No. 74 : Mafatlal Denims Limited


9

Respondent No. 75 : Gujarat Chambers of Commerce and Industry

Represented By : Shri D. S. Doshi.

Respondent No. 76 : Raymond Limited


Respondent No. 77 : Navin Fluorine International Limited

Represented By : Shri L.K. Pisolkar.

Respondent No. 78 : Pratibha Fabrics Limited


Respondent No. 79 : Steel Cast Limited


Respondent No. 80 : Open Access Users Association


Respondent No. 81 : Saint Gobain Glass India Limited


Respondent No. 82 : Nirma Limited


Respondent No. 83 : Welspun Private Limited


Respondent No. 84 : Shree Ram Oxy-Gas Private Limited


Respondent No. 85 : Plastene India Limited

10


Respondent No. 86 : Essar Electric Power Development Corporation

Limited

Represented By : Shri Bhavesh Kundalia.

Respondent No. 87 : Chiripal Poly Films Limited


Respondent No. 88 : SICGIL Industrial Gases Limited


Respondent No. 89 : Ankur Scientific Energy Technology Private Limited


Respondent No. 90 : Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Private Limited


Respondent No. 91 : SAL Steel Limited.

Represented by : Learned Advocate Shri Gaurav Mathur.

CORAM:

Shri Pravinbhai Patel, Chairman

Dr. M.K. Iyer, Member (Finance)

Date: 12/03/2014

ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the

following reliefs:

11

a. Hold that the obligation of the state distribution licensees in terms

of power purchase agreements has been and continues to be

stranded and there is an unavoidable obligation and incidence to

bear fixed costs consequent to such agreements.

b. Determine the additional surcharge of Rs 1.35 payable by new

open access consumers on quantum of power purchase through

open access using the network of distribution licensee.

c. Make applicable the additional surcharge on power purchased by

open access consumers under open access.

d. Maintain the cross subsidy surcharge at current levels in order to

ensure viability and sustainability in operations of DISCOMs.

e. Consider the information submitted by GUVNL for determining

the amount of additional surcharge.

2. The facts mentioned in the petition are briefly as under:

2.1. The petitioner is a government company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956, and performs the function of Bulk power

purchase and sale on behalf of the distribution licensees, Uttar Gujarat

Vij Company Limited (UGVCL), Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited

(MGVCL), Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) and Paschim

Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) which are the co-petitioners to

the present petition.

2.2. The Intra State ABT in the state of Gujarat was implemented on

5.4.2010 and SLDC / Discoms are granting approvals / consent to open

access consumers for purchase and sale of power through open access

12

as per Open Access Regulations. Accordingly, open access consumers

are now buying considerable quantum of power under open access and

on the other hand State DISCOMs have tied up considerable quantum of

power considering the overall growth of the state. This results into

stranded generation capacity and under recovery of fixed cost. The

present Petition is filed by the Petitioner before Hon’ble Commission

under GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations 2011, hereinafter referred to as Intra State Open Access

Regulations for determination of additional surcharge payable by open

access consumers availing power under open access.

2.3. Further, Section 42 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003, Section 8.5 of the

Tariff Policy, and Regulation 25 of the GERC (Terms and Conditions of

Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 provide Additional

Surcharge to meet the fixed cost of distribution licensee arising out of its

obligation to supply if it is conclusively demonstrated that the obligation

of a licensee, in terms of existing power purchase commitments, has

been and continues to be stranded, or there is an unavoidable obligation

and incidence to bear fixed costs consequent to such a contract.

2.4. Further, the petitioners have tied up the considerable quantum of

power procurement from various sources. The Installed capacity of the

power procurement from conventional sources works out to 18270 MW

as on 31.03.2013.

2.5. Further, the state has made significant capacity addition from

renewable sources to utilize natural resources available with the state.

At present total 3873 MW capacity is available from renewable sources

13

2.6. Thus, total installed capacity of the state from all sources (Conventional

and Non Conventional) works out to 22143 MW (18270 MW from

Conventional and 3873 MW from Non Conventional sources) as on

31.03.2013.

2.7. The peak demand for electricity in the state for FY 2011-12 was 11209

MW and for FY 2012-13 (as on date of application) was 12348 MW.

Thus, the generation capacity tied up by state is adequate to mitigate

demand for electricity.

2.8. Further, to meet the future demand of the State, State Utilities have tied

up adequate power from various sources including Competitive bidding

under Case I. By the end of 12th Five Year Plan i.e. by 2016-17 the

capacity to the tune of 7632 MW is expected to be commissioned

2.9. On commissioning of the above capacity, the installed capacity of State

from conventional sources will be 25902 MW which will be required to

serve the peak demand of 19670 MW estimated as per 17th Electric

Power Survey report (EPS) published by Central Electricity Authority

for the long term power purchase planning purpose.

2.10. Clause 3 of Regulation 25 the Intra-State Open Access Regulations

notified by the Commission provides that the distribution licensee shall

submit to the Commission on six monthly basis, a detailed calculation

statement of fixed cost which the licensee is incurring towards his

obligation to supply and the Commission shall scrutinize the statement

14

of calculation of fixed cost submitted by the distribution licensee and

obtain objections, if any, and determine the amount of additional

surcharge applicable to new open access customers.

2.11. Relevant details of amounts incurred towards obligations to pay

capacity charges under power purchase agreements, cost of

transmission payable to transmission licensees, other costs of

distribution business apart from power purchase costs for the year

2011-12 are as under:

Table A

Particulars Units

(Mus)

Amt.

(Rs Cr)

Fixed Cost of Power Purchase 6056

Variable Cost of Power Purchase 16104

Total Power Purchase 65827 22159

Less: Short term sale of power 5815 2181

Power Purchase for DISCOM

Consumers 60012 19978

Table B

Particulars

Net Fixed Cost (Rs Crs) (6056 Cr X 60012/65827) 5521

Net Variable Cost (Rs Crs) 14457

Total Cost (Rs Crs) 19978

Unit for DISCOMs consumers (Mus) 60012

15

Table – C

Particulars 2011-12

Total Fixed Cost of Power Purchase to

Generators (Rs Cr) (Table B)

A 5521

Add: Cost of Transmission (Rs Cr) B 1940

Add: Costs of Distribution business

excluding power purchase (Rs Cr)

C 2243

Total Fixed Cost (Rs Cr) (A+B+C) D 9704

The Total fixed cost for power purchase from the generators plus cost of

transmission and cost of distribution business excluding power

purchase works out to Rs 9704 Crs for 2011-12. The energy sold to the

consumers by the distribution licensees during financial year for FY

2011-12 was 49096 MUs. Additionally, the open access customers

purchased 1491 MUs of power under Open Access. If the open access

customers would have drawn this quantum of electricity from the

distribution licensees instead of through open access, the distribution

licensees would have supplied 50587 MUs. However, the same reduced

to 49096 MUs as the open access customers purchased and consumed

1491 MUs under Open Access. Thus, the fixed cost per unit of total

consumption of the consumers (including electricity drawn from the

licensees as well as through open access) works out to Rs. 1.92 per unit

as shown below:

16

Table - D

Particulars 2011-12

Total power sold by Discoms to end

consumers (Mus)

A 49096

Consumption under OA (Mus) B 1491

Total Units (Mus) (A+B) C 50587

Total Fixed Cost (Rs Cr) (Table C) D 9704

Fixed Cost Per unit sold to consumers plus

OA consumption (Rs / Unit) (D/C×10)

F 1.92

The details of under recovery of fixed charges, amount recovered by

Discoms towards wheeling charges and demand charges are as under:

Table - E

Particulars

2011-12

Amt.

(Rs.Crs)

Unit

(MUs)

Rs / Unit

Gross Under recovery of Fixed

Cost Due to OA Consumption 286 1491 1.92

Less: Wheeling Charges recovered 16 1491 0.11

Less: Recovery of Demand

Charges from OA Consumers 69 1491 0.46

Total Under recovery 201 1.35

There was gross under recovery of fixed cost of Rs 286 Crs for 2011-12

due to consumption of power by OA consumers under open access. Net

under recovery of fixed cost by Discoms due to OA consumption after

adjustment of demand charges and wheeling charges works out to Rs

1.35 per unit for the 2011-12.

2.12. In the above calculation Cross subsidy Surcharge of Rs 0.39/unit has not

been considered as it is towards the Cross subsidization to subsidized

17

category of consumers like Agriculture and BPL and this cross

subsidization is mainly through higher energy charges. As per Section 25

of Open Access Regulations, additional surcharge is payable by open

access consumers in addition to cross subsidy surcharge.

3. The matter was first heard on 4.5.2013. During the hearing the

Commission directed the petitioner to issue public notice inviting

comments/objection from stakeholders within 30 days of such notice

and also to upload the copy of the petition on the website of the

petitioner as the prayers sought by the petitioners shall impact a wide

range of entities situated in different parts of the State in different

distribution licensees’ area.

3.1. The petitioner on 17.05.2013, issued a public notice, as per the directives

given in the oral order of the Commission dated 10.05.2013 inviting

comments/objection from stakeholders, in newspapers, viz. Gujarat

Samachar, Sandesh and Indian Express, within 30 days from the date of

public notice.

3.2. In response to the aforesaid public notice, the Office of the Commission

received comments/objections from 91 stakeholders whose names are

shown as the respondents.

Considering the objections/comments of various stakeholders, the gist

of their suggestions is as follows:

GUVNL is a company in the State carrying out the function of Bulk

Power Purchase and Bulk Sale of power and has no locus standi to

file the present petition.

18

The data/calculations given are for the period of FY 2011-12 i.e. of

full year and not precedent six months, hence, need to be rejected on

this ground also.

The total installed/contracted capacity in the State has been

projected as 22143 MW consisting of 18270 MW of conventional and

3873 MW of Non-conventional as on 13.03.2013. As against the peak

demand reached in the year 2012-13 has been indicated as 12348

MW. Thus, only 55.8 % of the total capacity was utilized when the

State observed the peak demand.

The power purchased through open access for the year 2011-12 is

stated as only 1491 MUs which is less than 3% of the total

consumption of 50587 MUs by the consumers.

As per the data submitted in the petition, by Year 2016-17, the State

would have installed capacity of 25902 MW from conventional

sources and if we add the capacity of non-conventional sources, the

total availability may be above 30,000 MW against the recorded

maximum demand of 12348 MW. Thus, with an average growth of

power demand of 8 % the available capacity will far exceed the

demand and hence, the surplus capacity.

While allowing the power purchase cost in the ARR, the Commission

has rightly considered the overall tariff of the generating sources

including the fixed cost and variable cost. Hence, the computation of

additional surcharge indicated by the petitioner is misleading.

Detailed Study of the MYT data of Discoms clearly shows that in case

of HT/EHT consumers, the average tariff being recovered is more

than the average cost to serve.

19

Inspite of several directives of the Commission, the Gujarat

Distribution licensee have not yet furnished consumer category wise

and voltage level wise cost to serve data.

The agricultural subsidy accounts for a major liability to utilities and

cost to serve for agricultural section is artificially kept lower to

reduce the subsidy obligation of the Government.

Amount payable under various heads can be decided in tariff

petitions only. As per the Section 62 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003,

ordinary tariff or part thereof cannot be revised in the Financial year.

As per Regulations, Additional Surcharge is only applicable to new

open access customers.

Open Access consumers cannot be levied on Additional Surcharge till

they remain the consumer of the licensee of his area and continue to

pay Fixed Charges by way of Contract Demand Charges.

Considerable loss is attributable to not procuring power from other

more economical sources e.g. IEX/PXIL, UI Regime etc., even when

such opportunity are available and favoring GSECL to help it to

achieve better plant load factor overlooking to the fact that such

favours are not available to other IPPs/Generators.

Additional Surcharge is a surcharge payable on the charges of

wheeling, Additional Surcharge shall be only to meet out the Fixed

Cost of Distribution licensee arising out of its obligation to supply.

The Additional Surcharge shall become applicable only if obligation

of licensee in terms of power purchase commitments has been and

continues to be stranded.

The Calculations should consider the stranded fixed cost which is due

to the direct result of open access power brought during those time

20

blocks, where the generating capacity is available but not scheduled

solely due to such open access power.

The under recovery of Rs. 286 Crores for the year 2011-12 shown

by the petitioner is also not valid as the Commission has already

passed the MYT order and approved ARR and Annual Performance of

FY 2011-12 in which the Commission has not recognized such under

recovery.

Further, the month wise demand charges for energy drawn by open

access consumers furnished in annexure B of the petition are not

consistent. For DGVCL, in the month of September- 2011 to January,

2012 when exchange prices are low, open access consumption is

shown very low. Demand charges recovered are increasing some

time and then there is sudden drop (from Rs. 13.2 Crs in June 2011 to

Rs. 2.00 Crs in August, 2011) and so on. Demand charges recovery

cannot be fluctuating.

As per the data provided in tables A, B and C of the petition, the fixed

cost of power purchase should be Rs. 5521 Crs and not Rs. 9704 Crs.

as mentioned since the fixed cost related to network assets are to be

recovered through wheeling charges. Taking the aforesaid amount,

per unit fixed cost works out to be Rs. 0.92 and not Rs. 1.92 per unit.

According to Table A of the petition, per unit cost for total power

purchase is Rs. 3.37 per unit where as income from sale of power is

Rs. 3.75 per unit which clearly shows that for surplus capacity

GUVNL is gaining more than its purchase costs.

GUVNL should explore all the option of reducing its liability towards

capacity charges payment on surplus capacity and selling the surplus

capacity outside Gujarat.

21

4. The matter was heard on 23.07.2013, during which learned counsel of

objectors sought copies of the PPAs entered into by the petitioner on

account of which the petitioner has claimed the stranded fixed cost. The

Commission vide oral order dated 29.07.2013 directed the petitioner to

provide copies of following categories of PPAs (i) GUVNL and GSECL (ii)

GUVNL and Central Sectors like NTPC and (iii) PPA signed based upon

competitive bidding process for the reference of the objectors. In

compliance to above, the petitioner uploaded the PPAs signed with

Central power station i.e. NTPC, with State Generating Company i.e.

GSECL, and also uploaded the PPAs signed with IPP under competitive

bidding process for reference of the objectors.

5. The matter was further heard in detail on 17.08.2013. The petitioners

and respondents made their submissions regarding the maintainability

of the petition, validity of Additional Surcharge, documents provided by

the petitioners, deficiency in the documents etc.

Based on the submissions made by the parties the Commission framed

the following issues:

“1. Is the claim of the petitioner for Additional Surcharges valid and legal

in terms of provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003?

2. What are the data/documents required for determination of the

Additional Surcharge and whether the petitioner has submitted all the

relevant data/documents?”

22

6. After considering the submissions of the parties, the daily order dated

4.10.2013 was passed by the Commission, wherein it decided issue No.

1 in paras 9.1 to 9.5 of the said order as under:

“…

9.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties.

The preliminary objection raised by the objectors is that the

Additional Surcharge claimed by the petitioner is not legal and valid

in terms of provision of Electricity Act, 2003. While the petitioner

contended that the claim of the petitioner is legal and valid. It is,

therefore, necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the Electricity

Act, 2003 and GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open

Access) Regulations, 2011 notified by the Commission and provisions

of National Electricity Policy notified under Section 3 of the

Electricity Act, 2003 by the Ministry of Power.

9.2. Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 states about the duties of the

distribution licensees and open access, which is relevant in the

present petition is reproduced below:

“42.(1) It shall be the duty of a distribution licensee to develop and

maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical distribution

system in his area of supply and to supply electricity in accordance

with the provisions contained in this Act.

(2) The State Commission shall introduce open access in such

phases and subject to such conditions, (including the cross

subsidies, and other operational constraints) as may be specified

23

within one year of the appointed date by it and in specifying the

extent of open access in successive phases and in determining the

charges for wheeling, it shall have due regard to all relevant

factors including such cross subsidies, and other operational

constraints:

Provided that such open access may be allowed before the cross

subsidies are eliminated on payment of a surcharge in addition to

the charges for wheeling as may be determined by the State

Commission :

Provided further that such surcharge shall be utilised to meet the

requirements of current level of cross subsidy within the area of

supply of the distribution licensee :

Provided also that such surcharge and cross subsidies shall be

progressively reduced and eliminated in the manner as may be

specified by the State Commission:

Provided also that such surcharge shall not be leviable in case

open access is provided to a person who has established a captive

generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of

his own use.”

(3) Where any person, whose premises are situated within the area

of

supply of a distribution licensee, (not being a local authority

engaged in the business of distribution of electricity before the

appointed date) requires a supply of electricity from a generating

company or any licensee other than such distribution licensee,

such person may, by notice, require the distribution licensee for

wheeling such electricity in accordance with regulations made by

the State Commission and the duties of the distribution licensee

24

with respect to such supply shall be of a common carrier providing

non-discriminatory open access .

(4) Where the State Commission permits a consumer or class of

consumers to receive supply of electricity from a person other than

the distribution licensee of his area of supply, such consumer shall

be liable to pay an additional surcharge on the charges of

wheeling, as may be specified by the State Commission, to meet the

fixed cost of such distribution licensee arising out of his obligation

to supply.”

Sub-Section (1) of Section 42 of the Electricity Act, 2003 cast duty

upon the distribution licensee to develop and maintain an efficient,

co-ordinated and economic system in his area of supply and to

supply electricity in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-

Section (2) of Section 42 enables the Commission to decide the

terms and conditions and the charges payable for availing open-

access. Sub-Section 3 of Section 42 of the Act states that for the

consumers who obtain power supply from sources other than the

Distribution Licensee in whose area such consumer is situated, the

duty of the distribution licensee is of common-carrier for allowing

non-discriminatory open access to such consumer. Sub-Section

(4) of the Section 42 of the Electricity Act states that whenever the

Commission permits a consumer or class of consumers to receive a

supply of electricity other than the distribution licensee of his area

of supply such consumer shall require to pay an additional

surcharge on charge of wheeling as specified by the Commission to

meet fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising out of its

obligation to supply. Thus, aforesaid section recognizes that the

25

distribution licensee is entitled to receive the Additional Surcharge

on the charges of Wheeling as may be specified by the Commission.

Hence, the aforesaid provision recognize that Additional

Surcharge claim by the petitioner is legal and in accordance with

the provision of Electricity Act, 2003.

9.3. It is also necessary to refer regulation 25 of the GERC (Terms and

Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 notified

by the Commission which reads as under:

“25. Additional Surcharge

(1) An open access customer, receiving supply of electricity from a

person other than the distribution licensee of his area of supply,

shall pay to the distribution licensee an additional surcharge on

the charges of wheeling, in addition to wheeling charges and

cross-subsidy surcharge, to meet out the fixed cost of such

distribution licensee arising out of his obligation to supply as

provided under sub-section (4) of section 42 of the Act.

(2) This additional surcharge shall become applicable only if the

obligation of the licensee in terms of power purchase commitments

has been and continues to be stranded or there is an unavoidable

obligation and incidence to bear fixed costs consequent to such a

contract. However, the fixed costs related to network assets would

be recovered through wheeling charges.

26

(3) The distribution licensee shall submit to the Commission on six

monthly basis, a detailed calculation statement of fixed cost which

the licensee is incurring towards his obligation to supply.

The Commission shall scrutinize the statement of calculation of

fixed cost submitted by the distribution licensee and obtain

objections, if any, and determine the amount of additional

surcharge:

Provided that any additional surcharge so determined by the

Commission shall be applicable only to the new open access

customers.

(4) Additional surcharge determined on Per Unit basis shall be

payable, on monthly basis, by the open access customers based on

the actual energy drawn during the month through open access:

Provided that such additional surcharges shall not be levied in

case distribution access is provided to a person who has

established a captive generation plant for carrying the electricity

to the destination of his own use.”

Regulation 25 (1) of the above Regulations recognizes that the

distribution licensee is entitled to receive Additional Surcharge on

charges of wheeling in addition to wheeling charges. Regulation

25 (2) of the said regulation state the conditions in which the

Additional Surcharge shall become applicable. It states that

Additional Surcharge shall become applicable only if the

obligation of licensees in terms of Power Purchase Agreement

27

continues to be stranded or there is unavoidable obligation to bear

the fixed cost consequent to contract. The aforesaid Regulation

provides the process of determination of Additional Surcharge by

the Commission. Thus, the GERC (Terms and Condition of Intra-

State Open Access) Regulations 2011 notified by the Commission,

recognizes the applicability of Additional Surcharge and provides

for determination of such surcharge by the Commission.

9.4. Further, clause 5.8.3 of the National Electricity Policy notified by

the Ministry of Power, Govt. of India, reads as under:

“5.8.3 Under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, a surcharge is

to be levied by the respective State Commissions on consumers

switching to alternate supplies under open access. This is to

compensate the host distribution licensee serving such consumers

who are permitted open access under section 42(2), for loss of the

cross-subsidy element built into the tariff of such consumers. An

additional surcharge may also be levied under sub-section (4) of

Section 42 for meeting the fixed cost of the distribution licensee

arising out of his obligation to supply in cases where consumers

are allowed open access. The amount of surcharge and additional

surcharge levied from consumers who are permitted open access

should not become so onerous that it eliminates competition that

is intended to be fostered in generation and supply of power

directly to consumers through the provision of Open Access under

Section 42(2) of the Act. Further it is essential that the Surcharge

be reduced progressively in step with the reduction of cross-

subsidies as foreseen in Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act 2003.”

28

The aforesaid policy also recognizes leviability of the Additional

Surcharge on the Consumers who are permitted open access.

9.5. Learned Advocate Shri R. K Jain, who appeared on behalf of 36

objectors, fairly admitted that Additional Surcharge is leviable as

per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, National Electricity

Policy and GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open

Access) Regulations, 2011 framed under it by the Commission.

Considering all the above provisions, we decide that the claim of

the petitioner for Additional Surcharge is legal and valid.

…”

7. As the issue No. 1 was decided by the Commission in its daily order

dated 4.10.2013, the Commission held the hearing for issue No. 2 as

stated in para 5 above. The issue No. 2 is pertaining to what are the

data/documents required for determination of the Additional Surcharge and

whether the petitioner has submitted all the relevant data/documents or not.

7.1. The Commission heard the parties on above issue on 16.11.2013 and

21.12.2013. On 21.12.2013, some of the objectors contended that they

have filed review petitions against daily order dated 4.10.2013, which

need to be heard and decided first. The Commission observed that the

review petitions filed by some of the respondents are kept for hearing

on separate day hence the same will be heard by the Commission on the

date of hearing. These review petitions No. 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384, and

1385 of 2013 were heard by the Commission on 8.01.2014 and

dismissed vide order dated 5.03.2014.

29

7.2. M/s. Essar Steel India Limited, respondent No 54, herein, in response to

the public notice, had filed their submissions/objections against the levy

of Additional Surcharge claimed by the petitioners. Thereafter, M/s.

Essar Steel India Limited filed Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2013

in Petition No. 1302 of 2013, contending that the such Additional

Surcharge shall not be applicable to them as they have been granted the

status of a Regional Entity and its control centre has been shifted to

WRLDC, Mumbai vide order dated 8.6.2013 in Case No. 245/MP/2012

passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. During the

hearing on 21.12.2013, M/s. Essar Steel India Limited submitted that

they want to withdraw its submission in the present petition and also

the Misc. Application No.1 of 2013. They further submitted that they

have filed a separate petition No. 1362 of 2013 regarding applicability of

additional surcharge in their case. We, therefore, allow them to

withdraw their submission in the present case and also the Misc.

Application No. 1 of 2013.

7.3. On 21.12.2013, the Commission proceeded with hearing the parties on

issue No. 2 listed above along with methodology for determination of

the Additional Surcharge.

8. Submissions were made by various stakeholders including Reliance

Industries Limited, AIA Engineering Limited, Gujarat Chambers of

Commerce and Industry, Arvind Limited, Shri R K Jain’s (on behalf of 36

Objectors), Federation of Gujarat Industries and Others. Issues raised by

them , in brief, are as under :

I. The GUVNL has added contacted capacity in excess of its

requirement and hence burdening the consumers with large

30

stranded capacity and additional fixed costs. Moreover, the

Commission had, in ARR for FY 2013-14, approved 9484 MUs as

the units to be traded by GUVNL. Against this, the actual traded

units have been only 2494 MUs, which has also resulted in

stranded capacity.

II. The petitioner has not furnished data regarding backing down due

to transmission constraints as well as generation backing down

due to orders of WRLDC. Hence, based on the above it is amply

clear that GUVNL has added disproportionate capacity, which is

more than the requirement and hence burdening the consumers

with large stranded capacity and additional fixed cost.

III. The Open Access consumption i.e. 3247 MUs, against the available

generation of 54800 MUs is only 6%. Against it the stranded

capacity of generation is 20642 MUs which is 37 % of the available

generation of 54800 MUs for FY 2013-14 (for six months). This

establishes that the capacity would have remained stranded even

if there were no open access at all.

IV. It is also observed that deficit in traded units i.e. 2494 MUs by

GUVNL compared to approved units by GERC is of 4742 MUs

during six months of FY 2013-14. This deficit in traded units is one

of the reasons for stranded generation capacity. Hence, these units

also need to be considered while computing the fixed cost per

unit.

V. There needs to be conclusive evidence that such generating

capacities has been and will continue to be stranded solely due to

such open access consumers.

VI. Under such circumstances, when open access consumers have to

pay transmission charges and wheeling charges as approved by

31

the Commission, including Fixed Cost of Transmission and

Distribution for computing Additional Surcharge is not justified at

all. Open Access consumers are also compensating for

transmission and wheeling losses as approved by the Commission.

VII. As the open access consumers are compensating for losses

separately, per unit additional surcharge may be computed

considering the fixed cost per unit of power purchase payable to

Generating Company and not the Fixed Cost per unit of Energy

Supplied by Distribution Company.

VIII. The open access consumers are paying for transmission and

distribution assets fixed cost by way of Transmission charges and

wheeling charges and the transmission and distribution losses are

also applicable to them. In addition the Cross Subsidy Surcharge is

being paid by the Open access consumers to take care of cross

subsidy burden. The demand charges being paid by the open

access customers are being used to off-set the fixed charges

towards power purchase.

IX. The petitioner has submitted that the fixed costs could have been

reduced had the open access consumers availed the power from

discom which they otherwise purchased under open access.

Therefore, there is need to define the process of computation of

Additional Surcharge.

X. The open access consumers need to be categorized as the Open

Access consumers with CPP and the Open Access consumers

without CPP. Open Access consumers with CPPs normally

generate power for self consumption without drawing power from

discom. Due to economic reasons CPP generation is backed down

and power is availed through open access. CPP user is already

32

burdened with the fixed cost of his own stranded CPP generation

capacity. Hence, further burdening the OA consumers with CPP by

levying Additional Surcharge is not justifiable.

XI. The RIL has also raised the issues pertaining to various situations

such as (I) A consumer was using own generation for

consumption and discom had not planned the capacity for the

consumer. If such consumer opts for OA from other supplier, will

it be considered new Consumer? (ii) The consumer was availing

Open Access before Additional Surcharge was made applicable,

will it be considered a New Open Access consumer, if he filed for

Open Access again after Additional Surcharge is levied? (iii) A new

industry is being planned and it ties power under Open Access

from the start, will it cause stranded capacity of discom and

covered under additional surcharge?

XII. Thus the definition of New open access consumer needs to be

clarified by the Commission and its applicability.

XIII. In open access, all commercial settlements are done in 15 minutes

time blocks. All four discoms are separate legal entities.

Application of scheduling/UI charges etc. is company wise and not

for the entire GUVNL. It may happen that one discom is

overdrawing in particular time block and at the same time another

one is not. As a whole there may or may not be over drawal in

particular time block. However, UI account will be settled discom

wise. As such, to analyze the status of stranded power it is

necessary that the petitioner submits data each discom wise and

that too in 15 minute time block only. Then only real analysis can

be done. Present data does not serve any purpose in open access

case.

33

XIV. From Annexure-1 of data provided by the petitioner, no one can

ascertain the amount of MUs backed down conclusively due to

power purchase through open access. Similarly, data of demand

charges given in Annexure 6 is not reliable. Fluctuation shown

there-in in Demand Charges recovery is never possible.

XV. Demand Charges recovery data is required in two parts- One for

OA with Contract Demand and second for OA beyond or without

Contract Demand. It is pertinent to mention that consumer with

OA within Contract Demand is paying some amount against

Demand Charges, whereas another is not paying Demand Charges

at all and as such, additional surcharge, if at all applicable, should

be derived separately for both categories.

XVI. Insufficiency of data is therefore fatal to the present petition. The

objector relied upon the order dated 22.05.2011 of Punjab State

Electricity Regulatory Commission in petition No. 55 of 2011 and

submitted that the petitioner should submit the data regarding

backing down of generation capacity due to various reasons. The

total amount of Stranded Power Procurement cost is required to

be worked out on daily basis to be apportioned amongst the open

access customers importing power during the period when

additional surcharge is leviable.

XVII. The consumer availing OA within Contract Demand is paying

some amount against Demand Charges whereas consumer

availing open access beyond Contract Demand or without Contract

Demand is not paying anything against Contract Demand. As such

there should be separate additional surcharge;

(i) For power purchased through open access within Contract

Demand and

34

(ii) For power purchased through open access beyond contract

demand/without contract demand.

XVIII. GUVNL while proposing formula for determination of additional

surcharge, has considered fixed cost of (i) power purchase, (ii)

transmission cost and (iii) distribution cost excluding power

purchase.

XIX. (A). As per Section 61 of the Electricity Act, 2003, while

determining tariff the Commission is guided by National Tariff

Policy (NTP). Moreover, while determining the Additional

Surcharge it is necessary to refer Section 61 of the Electricity Act,

2003, Clause 8.5.4 of Tariff Policy and Regulation 25 of the GERC

(Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations,

2011. From the above it is clear that

a. Fixed cost related to stranded power purchase commitment

only is to be considered to derive additional surcharge,

b. The fixed cost related to network assets would be recovered

through wheeling charges and

c. The distribution licensee shall submit to the Commission on six

monthly basis, a detailed calculation statement of fixed cost,

d. Additional surcharge so derived is applicable only to the new

open access customers.

The fixed cost of power purchase commitments only can be

considered as stranded power purchase cost and other fixed cost

like transmission cost/other distribution cost etc cannot be

considered for levy of additional surcharge.

To conclusively derive stranded power purchase cost, analysis of

each time block of 15 minute is must to ascertain that there is no

35

over drawl/no load shedding/ power surrendered is not more

than power purchased by open access customers through Open

Access (except CPP wheeling/from renewable) in each 15 minute

time block considered for derivation of stranded power purchase

cost. Fixed cost of stranded power so derived to be considered as

base.

If the petitioner is not in a position to submit the required data,

overall fixed cost of completed power purchase of GUVNL may be

considered as the basis.

(B). From above base value of fixed power purchase cost, the

following items/values need to be subtracted

1. Per unit demand charges recovered from open access

consumers (to be considered zero for quantum of open access

beyond Contract demand or without Contract demand)

2. Cross subsidy Surcharge.

3. To meet consumers’ demand, some reserve (spinning, non-

spinning etc.) is required in power purchase, therefore some

percentage of fixed cost of overall power purchase is also to be

reduced.

4. Gain due to

a. Inadvertent flow,

b. Wheeling charges recovered,

c. Difference of amount recovered from sale of power and

variable cost of the power

d. Gain due to avoided power purchase cost in 11 KV. Actual

line losses of HT Industrial/express feeders are @ 2.5 %

whereas applicable losses are 10%. Difference of this one

needed to be deducted.

36

e. Any other deduction as deemed fit to the Commission.

The Amount derived above should be transformed to per

unit cost for Open Access consumption and then to be

deducted from per unit cost of stranded power purchased.

Thus, Additional Surcharge should be = XIX (A)-XIX (B)

(Here, A is Fixed Cost of Power Purchase derived as per

narration in XI (A) above and B is per unit amount derived

as per XIX (B) above.)

XX. While first provision to Section 42 (2) speaks of payment of a

surcharge in addition to the charges for wheeling as determined

by the State Commission, Section 42 (4) talks of paying an

additional surcharge on the charges of wheeling, as may be

specified by the State Commission. Therefore, it is very clear

under the Act that while ‘Open Access Surcharge’ is in addition to

the ‘Wheeling Charges’, the Additional Surcharge is a surcharge on

the Charges of wheeling or in other language Additional surcharge

will be worked out on the Charges of wheeling and that too if it is

established beyond doubt that there was stranding of the PPAs

and the quantum of power wheeled was effected thereof.

Moreover, the extent to which such stranding of the PPAs was on

account of the open access consumers.

XXI. While the Surcharge used in Section 42 (2) of the Act is nothing

else than the Cross subsidy Surcharge computed by the

Commission while considering the Annual Revenue Requirement

of the Distribution Licensee, it should not be mixed/confused with

the Additional Surcharge. Hon’ble APTEL, in its recent judgment

passed in Appeal No. 231 of 2012 filed by M/s. Jindal Stainless

37

Limited, hisar Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited

dated 14.11.2013, had rejected the plea of the respondent that the

term surcharge as mentioned in the Regulation 3 of the Supply

Code was not the Cross Subsidy Surcharge. The term surcharge as

appearing in Regulations 3 of the Haryana Supply Code is the

same as appearing in Regulation 2 (19) of the Supply Code.

XXII. The Commission determines the Wheeling Charges and Cross

Subsidy Surcharge as a part of the Tariff Order for each power

utilities on annual basis. The Commission determines the

Wheeling Charges by dividing the Distribution Cost of four

Discoms with the energy input at 11 kV. The impact of stranding

of the PPAs is only on the quantum of the ‘Energy Input’ at 11 kV

and would get reduced (by a small percentage) which will affect

the value of ‘Wheeling Charges’ in the same ratio. In this

computation, the cost of power due to stranding of power

procurement cost of generating stations for energy purchase does

not find any place. It is only the reduction in net quantum of

available energy which is, in turn, affects the ‘Wheeling Charges’.

XXIII. The impact of stranded Power Procurement Cost, if any, has to be

accounted for towards the ‘Fuel Supply Adjustment’ and not in the

‘Wheeling Charges’. Therefore, the Additional Surcharge, which is

on the Charges of Wheeling, is not affected by the changes in cost

of power, which may be due to stranding of power procurement

cost.

XXIV. Moreover, a Surcharge on any normal charges cannot be greater

than the principle charges and it could be a small fraction of

percentage of the principle charges only. Hence, the Additional

Surcharge even if levied by the Commission could be a small

38

percentage of the approved wheeling charges only rather than the

computation submitted by the petitioners.

XXV. Fixed Cost obligation of following generators should be excluded:

a. The machine/units which have completed their

standard/useful life of 25 years and above whose full fixed

costs have been recovered.

b. For IPPs machines/units, particularly gas/liquid fuel based

plants where initial period of PPA viz. 15 years is already over,

c. The generation capacity considered for use during

annual/capital overhauling/outages as also the spinning

reserves since it is for the benefit of all consumers and cannot

be considered as stranded capacity due to open access

consumers.

XXVI. Renewable power wheeled to consumers using open access is well

thought and deliberated process duly provided under the

Electricity Act, 2003 as well as the Regulations framed by the

Commission to provide incentives to such generation and

therefore such consumers should not be punished/burdened with

additional surcharge.

XXVII. Section 43 (1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 mandates that supply

should be provided within one month from application. The

petitioners should provide figures of pending application for new

connections/extension in load which were more than one month

old on the day of the petition, since had these application been

cleared, the total stranded capacity figure might be substantially

lower.

39

9. In response to the objections raised by the objectors/respondents on

issue No. 2 regarding adequacy of the data and the

methodology/formula for determination of Additional Surcharge,

Learned Advocate Shri M. G. Ramachandran, on behalf of the petitioners,

submitted that the methodology for calculation/determination of

additional surcharge suggested by the petitioner is valid and legal as per

the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 read with Regulations framed

under it by the Commission. The essence of Section 42 (4) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 is to compensate the distribution licensee to meet

the fixed cost of the distribution licensees arising out of its obligation to

supply. The stranded power purchase cost of the distribution licensees

is to be determined as per the obligation of the licensees under sections

42 and 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 to contract such quantum of

power purchase as would be required to meet not only the quantum of

power purchase for which agreements have already been entered into

with the consumers but also any increase the contract demand at any

point of time as well as the obligation to provide the electricity

connection that may be required by any person in the State. It is not

correct on the part of the objector to say that the distribution licensee

can contract only such quantum of power as is necessary for meeting

the demand of the existing consumer up to the existing contract demand

or demand under the existing agreement with the consumers.

9.1. In addition to the above, the licensee is required to arrange power

purchase in manner that the quantum of power is sufficient to (i) meet

the peak demand in a day, (ii) meet the peak demand in any particular

season i.e. taking into account the seasonal variation; and (iii) to meet

the increasing demand of new consumers.

40

9.2. Thus the total quantum of power purchase duly approved by the

Commission for procurement by the distribution licensee, particularly

on long-term or medium-term basis ought to be considered. The Long-

term power purchase agreement involve payment of capacity charges,

even if, the power is not scheduled on account of any reason including

reduction in the load during non-peak hours, seasonal variations.

9.3. The next issue to be considered is, the quantum of stranded power. This

would depend upon the capacity charges paid to the generator for non

utilization of power. Though, under the merit order the capacity

utilization is generally on the basis of the lowest variable cost, the

capacity charges has to be paid for the total capacity declared as

available. However, the methodology of considering the stranded

capacity based on merit order principle i.e. ascertaining particular

generating stations remained stranded to the extent of open access

quantum (lowest variable cost) is not uniform and absolute. There are

occasion, where the thermal power station is required to operate on a

technical minimum, transmission constraints etc and therefore there is

limitation to operate the power system in strict adherence to the merit

order. Accordingly, a particular generating station may be operated fully

or at technical minimum level though not falling under the merit order.

9.4. The fixed cost of the entire capacity tied up to meet the demand of the

consumers need to be shared by all the consumers on equitable manner

instead of identifying fixed cost of particular generating station to the

extent of open access quantum on the basis of any assumption. The

41

concept of spinning reserve etc should equally apply to Open Access

customers also for the reason mentioned above. All of these are

considered by the Commission while approving the quantum of power

purchase and the petitioners are referring to the said quantum while

determining the cost of stranded power.

9.5. The payment of Cross Subsidy Surcharge (CSS) has nothing to do with

the determination of Additional Surcharge. The CSS is related to tariff

design and not the quantum of power purchase and more particularly

not to the stranded power purchase cost. The wheeling charges are not

counted at all while determining Additional Surcharge under provision

of Section 42 (4) of the Act.

9.6. The loss level adjustment for the power purchase quantum is as per the

Commission’s ruling permitted under the tariff orders. Hence, the

formula suggested by the objectors is not inconsistent with the concept

of Additional Surcharge.

The petitioner has also referred and relied upon the order dated

23.12.2013 passed by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission

determining the Additional Surcharge.

10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties on

issue No.2 regarding data required for determination of the Additional

Surcharge and methodology for determination for determination of the

Additional Surcharge.

42

10.1. The respondents contended that the petitioner has not provided the

necessary data/documents in support of the calculation of Additional

Surcharge demanded by the respondents. It is further submitted that

the objector Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) contended that it has

filed an application on 12.07.2013 demanding certain documents from

the petitioner. Thereafter, it has also filed an application seeking

direction from the Commission to direct the respondent to provide the

documents. The objector has also contended that the documents sought

by them are not provided by the petitioner. In contrast to above, the

petitioner submitted that he had provided all relevant

documents/evidences to respondents demanded by them like the

details of various PPAs signed by the petitioner with NTPC, IPPs and

State Generating Companies etc. as per the directives of the

Commission. With regard to the issue for the documents demanded by

the objectors is concerned, we have already dealt with the issue in para

9.6 to 9.17 and para 10 of the order dated 4.10.2013. Therefore, the

contention of the objectors that the documents are not provided by the

petitioner is not valid and acceptable and the same is rejected.

10.2. The respondents also submitted that as directed by the Commission, the

petitioner should have suggested the methodology/formula for

calculation of additional surcharge, so that the respondents could have

responded on it.

10.3. The petitioner submitted that it has proposed the

methodology/calculation to determine the Additional Surcharge in the

petition which is required to be levied on Open Access consumers as

43

Stranded Power Purchase cost of distribution licensees. The petitioner

has also specified how to evaluate stranded power purchase cost of

distribution licensee in its petition.

10.4. We note that the petitioner has in the present petition prayed for

determination of Additional Surcharge. The petitioner has also

submitted the proposed methodology regarding determination of the

Additional Surcharge in the petition. The petitioner has also provided

the data of power procurement by the distribution licensee from

various sources which includes NTPC, State Generating Company, UMPP

projects, power procurement through Competitive Bidding Process ,

IPPs, etc. The petitioner has also provided the details of transmission

cost and distribution cost incurred by the distribution licensee. The

Commission had directed the petitioner in its order dated 4.10.2013 to

provide the methodology and formula if any to determine Additional

Surcharge by the Commission. However, the petitioner reiterated the

facts stated in the petition and submitted that the methodology

proposed in the petition may be adopted.

10.5. As the proposed methodology/ calculation/formula for determination

of Additional Surcharge is optional to the petitioner and validity of the

same be decided by the Commission and as the petitioner desire to

continue the proposed formula on which the objector/stakeholder have

given their objections/comments, we are of view that when the

petitioner himself desires to continue proposed methodology/

calculation for determination of Additional Surcharge, we decide that

there is no further need to direct to the petitioner in this matter and the

44

Commission shall decide the appropriate formula for determination of

the Additional Surcharge.

10.6. The respondents have also raised the issue and contended that the

Additional Surcharge shall be leviable only if the power purchase

commitment of Discoms continue to be stranded or there is an

unavoidable incidence to bear fixed cost consequent to such a contract.

It was also submitted that the petitioners have contracted capacity in

excess of the contract demand of the consumers and the capacity would

have remained stranded even if there would have no open access at all.

Moreover, there is deficit in traded unit as compared to that approved

by Commission. This deficit in traded units is one of the reasons for

stranded generation capacity.

10.7. There is a need of conclusive evidence that the generation capacity has

been and will continue to be stranded solely due to Open Access

consumers. The claim of the GUVNL that the fixed cost due to stranded

capacity of generation is on account of Open Access consumers is

erroneous.

10.8. The contention of the respondents about the stranded capacity is not

acceptable on following reasons:

1. The stranded power purchase cost of discom are required to

be decided on the basis of the obligation of licensee under

section 42 read with 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

2. The distribution licensee is obligated to meet the demand of

its consumers upto the total contracted demand of all

consumers. Moreover, the distribution licensee is duty bound

45

to provide connections to any new applicant within stipulated

period. To meet this obligation, the distribution has to source

adequate capacity of generation to meet the demand of its

consumers at any time through Power Purchase Agreement.

3. The distribution licensee is therefore duty bound to execute

the contract for purchase of power in a such quantum that

they are able to supply to the consumers under various

conditions, including outages of the generating units and

transmission constrains.

4. Moreover, while procuring the power it is required to ensure

that the power procurement quantum is sufficient to meet

peak demand in a particular season considering seasonal load

variation and also increase in demand of new consumers.

Thus ,the quantum of procurement of power varies based on

the various factors., which is decided by the Commission from

time to time.

10.9. The contention of the Respondents that the distribution licensee

has not procured the power in planned manner is incorrect

because discom cannot plan procurement of the power on the

basis that the certain demand has been reduced on account of

consumers opting for open access. The discom shall require to

supply electricity at all times to all the persons who have load

requirement in the State. The Discoms cannot ignore the contract

demand of the existing consumers and anticipated increase in

demand of consumers with consideration of Load forecast by it.

Moreover, the quantum of long-term power procurement is

decided by the Commission on the basis of projected demand and

46

of the basis of accepted norms of availability. As such, the licensees

enter into any PPA, only after approval of quantum by the

Commission. The Commission while approving the quantum of

power verifies the load demand stated in the EPS published by the

CEA and also the past data for demand growth observed in the

licensee area and also considers the load forecast anticipated by

the licensees with consideration of economical aspects of the

State/Nation. Therefore, the distribution licensees are procuring

the power on Long-Term/Medium-Term basis only with prior

approval of the Commission while in case of an emergency they

opt for procurement of power under Short Term Open Access,

without approval of the Commission to fulfill its obligation of USO.

10.10. In case of power procurement by the discoms on the basis of long-

term power purchase agreement, the licensees are required to pay

the capacity charges even if power is not scheduled on account of

any reason including reduction in load during non-peak hours,

peak hours, seasonal variance in demand due to various reasons

such as there is rainfall or if the summer is on peak or in case of

delay in rainy season increase of Agricultural load. Therefore, it is

incorrect to say that Discoms have tied up power more than

requirement.

10.11. The distribution licensees are obligated to pay the capacity charge,

even if the full available capacity is not scheduled due to load

variation or any other reason including procurement of power by

the consumer through open access.

47

10.12. The respondents have contended that the distribution licensees of

the State having different sources and different power

procurement costs, therefore while deciding the stranded capacity

and Additional Surcharge, the stranded capacity of power

procurement of each distribution licensee is required to be

considered by the Commission and to determine additional

surcharge separately for each distribution licensee. On this issue,

we observe that in the State of Gujarat, the GUVNL has been

authorized by the Government to purchase bulk power on behalf

of all the four distribution licensees. This enables a co-ordinated

power planning and results in economy in power purchase due to

different load patterns of different Discoms. Hence, the quantum of

stranded capacity and determination of additional surcharge has

also to be the common basis.

10.13. The capacity tied up with the generating stations is to meet the

demand of consumers of the State and needs to be paid fixed cost

of entire capacity by the discoms. Therefore, the fixed cost charges

need to be shared by all the consumers on equitable manner

instead of identifying fixed cost of particular generating stations to

the extent of open access quantum on the basis of any assumption.

10.14. The distribution licensee are required to keep spinning reserve to

meet the demand of the consumers which include open access

consumers also so that on demand by the consumers, the

48

distribution licensee is able to supply the power at any point of

time.

10.15. The respondents have also contended that once the Cross Subsidy

Surcharge is paid by the open access customers, levy of additional

surcharge is not valid. As far as levy of Additional Surcharge is

concerned, it is legal and valid as decided by the Commission in its

order dated 4.10.2013. We also clarify that the Cross Subsidy is a

part of tariff design and it is applicable amongst the different

categories of the consumers. Whereas the additional surcharge is

the charges which are levied on the Open access consumers due to

stranded capacity of power procurement cost of the distribution

licensee, which is required to be paid by the Discoms to the

generators.

10.16. The respondents have referred the provisions of Electricity Act,

2003 and GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations, 2011, and submitted that the Additional Surcharge

payable is required to be determined on the charges of wheeling in

addition to wheeling charges and cross subsidy surcharge to meet

the fixed cost of distribution licensee arising out of it obligation to

supply as provided under sub-section 4 of Section 42 of the Act. It

is therefore necessary to refer the definition of Wheeling. The

“wheeling” is defined in the Electricity Act, 2003, as under:

(76) "wheeling" means the operation whereby the distribution

system and associated facilities of a transmission licensee or

distribution licensee, as the case may be, are used by another person

49

for the conveyance of electricity on payment of charges to be

determined under section 62;

Thus, the wheeling charges are charges payable by the person for

utilization of distribution system, associated facilities of a

transmission licensee or distribution licensee for conveyance of

electricity. Thus, the wheeling charges are with regard to

utilization of the transmission and/or distribution licensees assets

by the person for utilization of the assets for conveyance of

electricity. The additional surcharge on the other hand is payable

to meet the fixed cost of distribution licensee arising out of its

obligation to supply as provided under Section 42 (4) of the

Electricity Act, 2003. The above provision provides that the

Additional Surcharge is in addition to wheeling charges. Section 42

(4) stipulates recovery of Fixed Cost by the distribution licensee

arising out of obligation to supply the electricity to the consumers.

The fixed costs incurred by the distribution licensee consist of

followings:

I. Fixed Cost payable to the generating companies for the

capacity booked by the distribution licensee to meet the

obligation to supply the electricity to the consumers,

II. Cost payable to the Transmission licensee for conveyance of

energy from the generating stations to the input point of the

distribution licensees, and

III. The cost payable for utilization of distribution licensee assets

from the input point or receipt of electricity from transmission

licensee to place of consumption of electricity at consumer

place.

50

The wheeling charge calculated under Section 62 of the Electricity

Act, 2003 is with regard to the cost payable for utilization of

distribution licensee assets. Therefore, the Fixed Cost required to be

recovered by distribution licensees to meet its obligation to supply

the electricity is with respect to Fixed Cost payable by the

distribution licensee to generating companies for capacity booked by

it and transmission licensee cost which payable for conveyance of

energy.

10.17. In the Regulation 42 (4), the word Additional Surcharge on charges

of wheeling means that the Additional Surcharge shall be over and

above the charges of Wheeling. As such the distribution licensees are

entitled to recover the additional surcharge (in addition to the

Wheeling Charge) to meet its fixed cost commitments on capacity

that remains stranded due to some of its consumers opting to

purchase power from third party sources through open access.

10.18. Based on the above observations, we decide that the Additional

Surcharge is required to be evaluated with consideration of stranded

capacity of the generating stations for which the distribution licensee

is required to pay capacity charges and the transmission charges

payable for conveyance of energy from generating station to

distribution licensee network and fixed cost of stranded capacity of

distribution network assets.

10.19. The objectors have also contended that the Additional Surcharge

determined shall be applicable to the New Open Access customers

51

only. Based on the above submissions, the objectors have submitted

that the Additional Surcharge be applicable to only those consumers

who apply for open access for the first time and not by those who

were already availing open access. In this connection, we observe

that the open access is granted to any consumer for a fixed period of

time. At the end of such period, the consumer has an option to apply

afresh for open access, where the duration and quantum of open

access may be different than the previous case. As such, there is no

concept of existing open access customers. Each application for open

access is dealt by the nodal agency independent of the fact that

whether the applicant was earlier availing open access or not.

As such, we decide that the word new open access customers

specified in the Regulations 25 (3) of the said Regulations relates to

all the consumers who apply for open access commencing during the

period for which the additional surcharge is determined by the

Commission.

10.20. The objectors have also objected regarding calculations of the

stranded capacity of the distribution licensee and they have also

submitted that the stranded capacity be evaluated with

consideration of following;

1. Block wise back down of generation due to open access

consumers.

2. Block wise power purchase in megawatt by open access

consumers.

52

3. Gain due to less power purchase (higher variable cost avoided

as per merit order)

4. Fixed cost of less power purchase stated at point 3 above.

5. Wheeling charges recovered from open access consumers.

6. Per unit demand charges recovered from each open access

consumers along with its contract demand.

7. Transmission charges paid per unit by open access

consumers.

8. Per unit gain due to Open Access consumers for reason stated

as :

(i) Applicable wheeling losses for 11 kV are 10%

whereas actual loss of HT express/industrial feeder

is about 2.5%.

(ii) Per unit cross subsidy surcharge received on actual

drawn energy (for which set-off given).

(iii) Gain due to inadvertent flow.

10.21. The petitioner in contrast submitted that the stranded capacity is

required to be calculated with consideration of following aspects:

1. Power procurement of the distribution licensee

2. Backing down of the generating units due to purchase of power

by the open access customers from the market lead to lower

requirement of demand and scheduled of energy,

3. Sell of surplus energy to third party.

4. Backing down of generating stations due to force outage,

reserved shut down etc.

53

5. There is no congestion in the transmission network due to

which backing down be carried out.

10.22. Regarding adequacy or otherwise of the data furnished by the

petitioner for determination of additional surcharge, we have taken

note of the submissions made by the parties and dealt with the

matter in subsequent paras of this order.

10.23. Some of the respondent contended that the additional surcharge is

not applicable in the cases of consumers availing open access to

wheel power from their own captive power plants and/or from the

renewable sources. Here, it may be clarified that the additional

surcharge is payable to meet the fixed charges of capacity stranded

due to the open access customers. In case, a consumer is meeting his

full demand from his captive generation, there is no question of any

stranded power purchase cost due to such consumer. As such, the

additional surcharge will not be leviable on such open access

customers who wheel power from their own captive generation

plant and/or renewable energy sources.

10.24. On the other hand, there may be cases, where the consumers are

meeting their demand partially from the distribution licensee and

partially from its own CPP or the renewable sources. In such cases, if

the consumer avails open access to purchase power from any third

party, the additional surcharge shall be levied to the extent of power

purchased from third party.

54

10.25. Based on the submissions made by the petitioners and the objectors,

the issues that emerged for decision of the Commission are as under:

(1) Maintainability of the Petitions, legality and validity of levy of


(2) Categories of consumers on which the additional surcharge is

leviable.

(3) Data required for determination of additional surcharge.

(4) Methodology for determination of additional surcharge.

So far as the first issue is concerned, we have already dealt with it in

our daily order dated 4/10/2013, wherein we have held that

additional surcharge is leviable on the open access consumers as per

the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, National Electricity Policy

and GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations 2011. Some of the objectors had filed review petitions on

this daily order. These review petitions have been disposed of by the

Commission vide its order dated 5/3/14 wherein we have decided

that these petitions were devoid on merit and the same were

dismissed. As such, this issue attained finality and the Commission has

upheld the legality and validity of levy of additional surcharge.

10.26. Regarding the second issue, some of the objectors have contended that

they are connected with EHV network of the transmission licensee

and hence not liable to pay the additional surcharge. This issue was

also dealt by the Commission in its order dated 5/3/2014 on the

55

review petitions referred above. The decision of the Commission on

this issue recorded in the said order is reproduced below:

“8.9. The contention of the petitioners that they are connected to the 66

kV transmission line of GETCO and hence are not liable to pay the

additional surcharge is not correct. As pointed out in para 8.8 above, the

consumer who is supplied with electricity for its own use by a licensee

can be at any level of voltage which is operated either by distribution

licensee or transmission licensee. The fact that a consumer is connected

to the transmission network does not alter his relationship with the

distribution licensee as the licensee is obligated to supply his demand

and the bills for electricity consumed by such consumers are raised by

the distribution licensee and not the transmission licensee. As provided

under section 42 (4), the additional surcharge is to be levied to meet the

fixed cost of such distribution licensee arising out of its obligation to

supply. So long as the supplier-consumer relationship exists between the

licensee and the consumer, the licensee has to meet his obligation to

supply power to such consumer on demand and the section 42 (4) of the

Act provides for levy of additional surcharge to meet the fixed cost of

licensee arising out of his obligation to supply. Further, the contention of

the petitioner that he is not liable to pay additional surcharge since he is

not connected to the distribution network and not paying any wheeling

charges is not correct. The intention of section 42(4) is to levy the

additional surcharge over and above the charges of wheeling and not as

a fraction of the wheeling charges. As such the additional surcharge is to

reflect the fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising out of his

obligation to supply. Hence, the contention of the petitioner on this

ground is not acceptable and rejected.”

56

10.27. Some of the objectors have also contended that since they are drawing

power from their captive generators and from renewable sources,

they are not liable to pay the additional surcharge. As observed in

paras 10.23 and 10.24 above, we decide that the consumers drawing

power through open access from their own captive generators and/or

from renewable generators are not liable to pay additional surcharge

for power drawn from these sources. In other words, consumers of

the distribution licensee who avail open access to procure

conventional power from a third party other than their respective

distribution licensees are liable to pay the additional surcharge.

10.28. Regarding data requirement for determination of additional

surcharge, petitioners have furnished certain data pertaining to FY

2012-13 in the petition. The objectors have contested that this data is

not sufficient to determine the additional surcharge. Moreover, the

regulations provide for determination of additional surcharge based

on the six monthly data.

Further, we observe that the additional surcharge is to be levied to

meet the fixed cost of the distribution licensee arising out of its

obligation to supply power. As such the distribution licensee has to

contract sufficient power to meet the aggregate demands of its

consumers and to provide for unforeseen outages of the generators.

However, even in normal scenario, full availability of such contracted

capacity may not be required by the licensee. As such the total

quantum of backing-down cannot be considered for determination of

additional surcharge. The relevant figure would be the capacity

57

stranded due to the consumer who opt to purchase power from third

parties through open access instead of drawing their full requirement

form the licensee. As such, it is important to ascertain the surplus

power available with the licensee viz-a-viz power procured by the

consumers from third parties. Further, we are in the middle of second

half of FY. 2013-14, it is per pertinent to consider data for the first half

of FY 2013-14 and the additional surcharge calculated on the basis of

this data shall be leviable for the next six monthly period i.e. 1st April

2014 to 30th September 2014. For this purpose, we decided to collect

hourly data of availability, schedule and open access transactions from

the SLDC. The list of data obtained from SLDC and the petitioners for

the period from April 2013 to September 2013 is as under:

(i) Total contracted capacity in MW.

(ii) Hourly availability declared by the generator in MW.

(iii) Hourly schedules given by the petitioner in MW.

(iv) Hourly schedules of Open Access transactions by the Open

Access consumers in MW.

(v) Total fixed charges paid by the petitioner.

(vi) Total transmission charges paid by the petitioner.

(vii) Total energy scheduled by the petitioner in MUs.

(viii) Total energy consumed by the Open Access consumers from

their respective licensees in MUs.

(ix) Total energy scheduled by Open Access consumers for third

parties.

(x) Total demand charges paid by the HT/EHT consumers and total

sale of energy to the HT/EHT consumers.

58

(xi) Total demand charges paid by the Open Access consumers

having contracted demand with the licensees.

Determination of Additional Surcharge

10.29. Now, we deal with the issue regarding determination of Additional

Surcharge. It is therefore necessary to refer the relevant provisions

provided in the National Electricity Policy, Tariff Policy and Regulations

25 of the GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access)

Regulations ,2011 which reads as under:

Clause 5.8.3 of the National Electricity Policy reads as under

“5.8.3 Under sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, a surcharge is to be

levied by the respective State Commissions on consumers switching to

alternate supplies under open access. This is to compensate the host

distribution licensee serving such consumers who are permitted open

access under section 42(2), for loss of the cross-subsidy element built into

the tariff of such consumers. An additional surcharge may also be

levied under sub-section (4) of Section 42 for meeting the fixed cost

of the distribution licensee arising out of his obligation to supply in

cases where consumers are allowed open access. The amount of

surcharge and additional surcharge levied from consumers who are

permitted open access should not become so onerous that it eliminates

competition that is intended to be fostered in generation and supply of

power directly to consumers through the provision of Open Access under

Section 42(2) of the Act. Further it is essential that the Surcharge be

reduced progressively in step with the reduction of cross-subsidies as

foreseen in Section 42(2) of the Electricity Act 2003.”

59

Clause 8.5.4 of the Tariff Policy reads as under:

“8.5.4 The additional surcharge for obligation to supply as per section

42(4) of the Act should become applicable only if it is conclusively

demonstrated that the obligation of a licensee, in terms of existing power

purchase commitments, has been and continues to be stranded, or there

is an unavoidable obligation and incidence to bear fixed costs

consequent to such a contract. The fixed costs related to network assets

would be recovered through wheeling charges.”

Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of

Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011 provides that-

“25 (3) The distribution licensee shall submit to the Commission on six

monthly basis, a detailed calculation statement of fixed cost which

the licensee is incurring towards his obligation to supply.

The Commission shall scrutinize the statement of calculation of fixed cost

submitted by the distribution licensee and obtain objections, if any, and

determine the amount of additional surcharge:

Provided that any additional surcharge so determined by the Commission

shall be applicable only to the new open access customers.

(4) Additional surcharge determined on Per Unit basis shall be

payable, on monthly basis, by the open access customers based on the

actual energy drawn during the month through open access:

Provided that such additional surcharges shall not be levied in case

distribution access is provided to a person who has established a captive

generation plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own

use.”

60

The above provisions provide that the Additional Surcharge is leviable

under Section 42 (4) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for meeting the fixed

cost of the distribution licensee arising out of its obligation to supply to

the consumers when allowed for open access. While determining the

Additional Surcharge, it is necessary to evaluate the stranded cost of the

distribution licensee.

10.30. While deriving the stranded cost it must be kept in mind that the fixed

cost arrived at for the stranded capacity shall be purely attributable to

the Open Access Consumers and the distribution licensee, which has the

universal service obligation, is appropriately compensated for allowing

such open access. The formula for arriving at the stranded cost on

account of the Open Access Consumers as well as the compensation to

the distribution licensee for its universal service obligation is kept at

Annexure-I.

The Regulation 25 (3) of the GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State

Open Access) Regulations 2011 provides that on the basis of six months

data the calculation of obligation of licensee to supply be evaluated with

consideration of stranded power procurement of the licensees. In view

of the above, the six-monthly details for the period from April 2013 to

September 2013 as submitted by the GUVNL, is analyzed and Additional

Surcharge on per unit basis is determined as given below-

(i) In order to derive the stranded capacity due to Open Access

Consumers, the Commission has considered the hourly data of

surplus capacity (available capacity – scheduled capacity) vis-à-

61

vis scheduled capacity of OA consumers. The lower of the surplus

capacity as shown above and capacity scheduled by OA

consumers is considered as stranded capacity for the hour. The

average stranded capacity due to OA consumers for the six

months period (April 2013 to September 2013) works out as 739

MW.

(ii) Petitioner has submitted that they have paid Rs. 4,663 crore as

fixed charges in accordance with the arrangement with various

generators against the average availability of 12,477 MW capacity

for the six month period from April 2013 to September 2013.

Thus, the average fixed charges paid by the petitioner works out

as 0.37 crore per MW capacity. (i.e. 4663 Crores/12477 MW)

(iii) Accordingly the fixed charges for stranded capacity of 739 MW

works out as Rs. 276.18 crore (739 x 0.37).

In order to compensate the distribution licensee for transmission

and wheeling charges, which otherwise they have incurred, for

allowing energy drawn by open access consumers shall be

deducted from the demand charges paid by the Open Access

Consumers to the distribution licensee, which otherwise was due

to the distribution licensee.

The OA consumers have also paid the demand charges to the

Distribution Licensee as a regular consumer and also drawn

energy from the Distribution Licensee. Hence, it is required to give

adjustment of demand charges paid by the open access consumers

in the stranded costs after deducting the transmission and

62

wheeling charges related to energy drawn by Open access

consumers from the Distribution Licensees, as mentioned above.

(iv) The Open Access consumers have paid Rs. 211.54 crores as

demand charges to the Distribution licensee and drawn 1288 MU

from the licensee as retail consumers.

(v) The actual transmission charges paid by the GUVNL for the six

month period is Rs. 1531.40 crore and scheduled energy for that

period is 34,158.21 MUs. Hence, the actual transmission cost

works out as Rs. 0.45 per kWh.

(vi) The Distribution wheeling charges as approved by the

Commission for the FY 2013-14 is Rs. 0.12 per kWh.

(vii) Thus, the total T & D cost comes to Rs. 0.57 per kWh. (Rs.

0.45/unit + Rs. 0.12/unit)

(viii) Thus, the Open Access consumers have to compensate Rs. 73.20

Crores (i.e. 1288 MUs x 0.57 Rs./Unit) to the distribution licensees

towards transmission and distribution charges.

(ix) Thus, the demand charges to be deducted from the stranded

capacity charge works out to be Rs. 138.34 Crores. (i.e. 211.54-

73.20 Crs.)

Based on the above, the Additional Surcharge is determined as under:

63

(x) Hence, the net stranded charges of Rs. 137.85 crores, (i.e. Rs.

276.18 – 138.34 crores) is to be considered for determination of


The OA scheduled energy during the period is 3247.51 MU and hence

the additional surcharge per unit works out as Rs. 0.42 per kWh.

Hence, the Commission determined the additional surcharge at Rs. 0.42

per kWh.

Detailed computation worksheet attached as Annexure-I.

11. In view of above observations, we decide that the present petition

succeeds. The petitioner is eligible to recover the additional surcharge

as per the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003, National Electricity

Policy, Tariff Policy and GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State

Open Access) Regulations, 2011. The Additional Surcharge determined

based on the data for period April, 2013 to September, 2013 of the

petitioner works out to Rs. 0.42 per kWh. The additional surcharge of Rs

0.42 per kWh shall be applicable to the consumers of the co-petitioner,

viz. MGVCL, UGVCL, PGVCL and DGVCL, who avail power through open

access from any source other than their respective DISCOMs and for the

open access transaction commencing from 1st April, 2014 to 30th

September, 2014. The Additional Surcharge shall be levied on the

quantum of electricity scheduled by such consumers.

12. We, further, decide that the rates of additional surcharge for the

subsequent periods shall be determined by the Commission on the

similar methodology on the basis of data to be furnished by the

64

petitioners. For this purpose, the petitioners are directed to furnish data

as listed in para 10.28 above, for each 6 monthly period of October to

March and April to September within 30 days of completion of the 6

months period. The additional surcharge shall be determined by the

Commission on the above data for the subsequent 6 months period, i.e.

the additional surcharge determined on the basis of data for April to

September of a particular year shall be applicable for April to

September period of next year and so on.

13. In view of the submissions made by M/s. Essar Steel India Limited, as

mentioned in para 7.2 above, they are allowed to withdraw their

submission in the present case.

14. We order accordingly.

15. With this order, the present petition stands disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/-

[Dr. M. K. IYER] [SHRI PRAVINBHAI PATEL]

MEMBER (Finance) Chairman

Place: Gandhinagar.

Date: 12/03/2014.

65

Annexure I of Order dated 12.3.2014 in Petition No. 1302 of 2013:

Determination of Additional Surcharge

For the period from April '13 to September'13

Sr. No Description Value Unit

1 Contracted Capacity 18,852 MW

2 Maximum Availability 15,168 MW

3 Minimum Availability 10,339 MW

4 Average Availability 12,477 MW

5 Maximum Scheduled 10,622 MW

6 Minimum Scheduled 4,551 MW

7 Average Scheduled 7,777 MW

8 Capacity not availed (Max) 9,550 MW

9 Capacity not availed (Min) 891 MW

10 Capacity not availed (Avg.) 4,700 MW

11 OA Allowed (Max) 939 MW

12 OA Allowed (Min) 496 MW

13 OA Allowed (Avg.) 739 MW

14 Capacity stranded due to OA 739 MW

15 Total Fixed Charge (PPA) 4,663 Rs. Crore

16 Fixed charges per MW available 0.37 Rs. Crore

17 Fixed charges of stranded capacity 276.18 Rs. Crore

18 Transmission Charges paid 1,531.40 Rs. Crore

19 Energy Scheduled 34,158.21 MU

20 Transmission Charges per kWh 0.45 Rs./kWh

21 Distribution Charges (As approved in Tariff Order) 0.12 Rs./kWh

22 Total T & D Charges per kWh 0.57 Rs./kWh

23 Energy Consumed by OA Consumer from Discoms 1,288.00 MU

24 T & D charges payable to Discoms by OA consumers 73.20 Rs. Crore

25 Demand Charges Recovered by Discoms from OA 211.54 Rs. Crore

26 Demand Charges to be adjusted 138.34 Rs. Crore

27 Net stranded charges recoverable 137.85 Rs. Crore

28 OA scheduled energy 3,247.51 MU

29 Additional surcharge 0.42 Rs./kWh

Petition No. 1302 of 2013 In the matter of - sldcguj Order in... · Petition No. 1302 of 2013 In the matter of: ... Vadilal Industries Limited ... Videocon Industries Limited

Documents