HPGCL Tariff Petition for the FY 2012-13 - Haryana …hpgcl.gov.in/userfiles/file/Finance/Tarrif...
74
HPGCL Tariff Petition for the FY 2012-13 November 30, 2011 Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited Urja Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana
Transcript of HPGCL Tariff Petition for the FY 2012-13 - Haryana …hpgcl.gov.in/userfiles/file/Finance/Tarrif...
HPGCL Tariff Petition for the FY 2012-13
November 30, 2011
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited
Urja Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula, Haryana
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
1
Table of Contents
1. Background ______________________________________________________________________________ 4
1.1. Introduction _________________________________________________________________________ 4
1.2. Brief Company Profile _________________________________________________________________ 5
1.3. Key achievements of HPGCL: ____________________________________________________________ 6
2. Performance of HPGCL Stations over the years and current operational constraints ___________________ 9
2.1. Historical performance of HPGCL stations _________________________________________________ 9
2.2. Operational constraints of HPGCL Power plants ___________________________________________ 19
2.3. Coal transit loss ______________________________________________________________________ 26
2.4. R&M of HPGCL power plant: PTPS Panipat _______________________________________________ 34
2.5. Loss of Generation due to Backing Down _________________________________________________ 39
2.6. Force Majeure _______________________________________________________________________ 40
3. Submission ______________________________________________________________________________ 43
3.1. Brief of Submissions __________________________________________________________________ 43
3.2. Prayer _____________________________________________________________________________ 46
4. Projections of the Technical Parameters ______________________________________________________ 47
4.1. Plant Load Factor ____________________________________________________________________ 47
4.2. Plant Availability Factor (PAF) __________________________________________________________ 51
4.3. Station Heat Rate ____________________________________________________________________ 52
4.4. Auxiliary Consumption ________________________________________________________________ 59
4.5. Fuel Price and Calorific Value __________________________________________________________ 62
4.6. Specific Oil Consumption ______________________________________________________________ 62
4.7. Coal Transit Loss _____________________________________________________________________ 63
4.8. Moisture Loss: _______________________________________________________________________ 63
5. Estimated expenses for FY 2012-13 __________________________________________________________ 65
5.1. Return on Equity _____________________________________________________________________ 65
5.2. Income-tax _________________________________________________________________________ 65
5.3. Interest on Loan Capital and Finance Charges _____________________________________________ 65
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
2
5.4. Depreciation ________________________________________________________________________ 66
5.5. Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) _____________________________________________________ 67
5.6. Operation and Maintenance Expenses ___________________________________________________ 67
6. Other Considerations ______________________________________________________________________ 70
6.1. Two Part tariff _______________________________________________________________________ 70
6.2. Recovery of Capacity (Fixed) Charges ____________________________________________________ 70
6.3. Third party sell in case of payment default by distribution licensee ___________________________ 70
6.4. Terms of payment and adjustment of receipts towards outstanding dues ______________________ 70
6.5. Application Fees and Publication Expenses _______________________________________________ 71
7. Annexures_______________________________________________________________________________ 72
7.1. Audited Annual Accounts for FY 2010-11 _________________________________________________ 72
7.2. Cost Accounting record along with Cost Audit report for FY 2009-10 __________________________ 72
7.3. Minutes of meeting of “Steering Committee for Power Planning” under the Chairmanship of Financial
Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Power), Govt. of Haryana dated 20th
September 2011 ____________ 72
7.4. Appellate Order on Appeal No. 81 of 2007 dated 10th
January, 2008 __________________________ 72
7.5. Appellate Order on Appeal No. 26 of 2008 dated 7th
April, 2011 ______________________________ 72
7.6. CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009, Statement of Objects & Reasons ________ 72
7.7. Cost benefit of Imported Coal __________________________________________________________ 72
7.8. Unit wise depreciation ________________________________________________________________ 72
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
3
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HARYANA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, HARYANA
FILING NO. ………………………………………………………….
CASE NO. ………………………………………………………….
IN THE MATTER OF PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF GENERATION TARIFF
FOR THE YEAR FY 2012-13 FOR HARYANA POWER
GENERATION CORPORATION LIMITED UNDER
SECTION 61 & 62 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 2003
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICANT: HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION
LIMITED
URJA BHAWAN, C-7, SECTOR-6
PANCHKULA, HARYANA
PETITIONER
THE APPLICANT ABOVE NAMED RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
4
1. BACKGROUND
1.1. Introduction
The Govt. of India notified the Electricity Act, 2003 on 10th
June, 2003 repealing the Indian Electricity
Act-1910, the Electricity (Supply) Act 1948 and the E.R.C. Act, 1998. Among the tariff related provisions,
the State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has to be guided by National Electricity Policy and
National Tariff Policy. Also, as per the national tariff Policy, the Central Commission would, in
consultation with the Central Electricity Authority, notify operating norms from time to time for
generation and transmission which would be adopted by the SERC. Further in case of power plants/
generating units, whose performance has been below normative level for quite some time, relaxed
norms relatable to past performance and vintage of the plants shall be fixed.
The petitioner, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL) is a Company incorporated
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is wholly owned by the Government of Haryana.
The business of Generation of Power of erstwhile HSEB was transferred to HPGCL on 14th
August 1998
for generation of power from state owned Generating stations. The Company, having its registered
office at Urja Bhawan, C-7, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana is filing this application seeking Approval of
Generation tariff for the financial year FY 2012-13.
The Regulation 7(1) of HERC (Terms & Conditions for Determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations,
2008 requires the revenue requirement details for determination of Generation tariff for the ensuing
year should be filed each year by 31st
October. The HPGCL, vide memo no. HPGC/FIN/Reg.-403/236
dated 19/10/2011, requested the Hon’ble Commission for extension in filing of Tariff
Petition/Application for FY 2012-13 by 30th
November 2011. The Hon’ble Commission accepted the
request and the extension were granted to HPGCL vide letter No. 2385/HERC/Tariff/HPGCL/Generation
tariff/FY 12-13/2011 dated 28/10/2011.
In accordance with the statuary requirements under the provisions of Section 61 and 62 of Electricity
Act, 2003, HPGCL is submitting this application for approval of the Generation tariff for FY 2012-13
based on the CERC “Terms & Condition of Tariff Regulation 2009-14” and tariff principles as considered
by the Hon’ble Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission in its past orders/ Regulations.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
5
1.2. Brief Company Profile
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. (HPGCL), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner, is a
company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and is wholly owned by the Government of
Haryana. HPGCL was incorporated as a company on 17th
March, 1997 and was given the responsibility of
operating and maintaining State’s own generation projects. The business of Generation of Power of
erstwhile HSEB was transferred to HPGCL on 14th
August 1998. In addition, it has been entrusted with
the responsibility of setting up of new generating stations in order to keep pace with the ever –
increasing demand of power. The Company, having its registered office at Urja Bhawan, C-7, Sector 6,
Panchkula, Haryana is filing this application seeking Approval of Generation tariff for the financial year
FY 2012-13.
The Petitioner is engaged in the business of generation of power in the state through its medium and
large thermal generating stations which are located at Panipat, Yamuna Nagar, Hisar and small hydro
stations located at the Western Yamuna Canal (WYC) Bhudkalan, Yamiuna Nagar and One Hydal project
at Kakroi in Sonipat district. HPGCL, which started with a modest installed generation capacity of
863.3MW, has presently an installed generation capacity of 3230.50 MW. The electricity generated at
these power stations is evacuated and transmitted through the transmission network of Haryana Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (HVPNL) to the Distribution Companies i.e. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam(UHBVNL) and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam (DHBVNL) who are the distribution licensee(s)
for the entire state of Haryana with geographical division amongst them. HPGCL also exercised the rights
relating to procurement of power & bulk supply of electricity / trading of power for some time ( w.e.f.
9.06.2005) but the same was ultimately transferred from HPGCL to UHBVNL & DHBVNL w.e.f.
01.04.2008 vide State Govt. Notification No. 1/1/2008-1 dated 11.04.2008.
HPGCL owns & operates the following power plants in the state:
1) Panipat Thermal Power Station, Panipat - 1367.8MW.
2) Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Project, Khedar, Hisar. – 1200 MW
3) Deen Bandhu Chhotu Ram Thermal Power Project, Yamuna Nagar - 600MW
4) WYC Hydro Electric Station, Yamuna Nagar – 62.4 MW
5) Micro Hydro Power Station,Kakroi-0.3 MW
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
6
HPGCL is also coordinating the activities of following power project:
1) 1500MW Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power (IGSTPP) Project, Jhajjar – The Project is being
executed by NTPC from concept to commissioning in Joint Venture with Government of Delhi and
Government of Haryana having HPGCL’s equity share of 25%;
2) 1320 MW Mahatma Gandhi Thermal Power Project (MGTPP) in Jhajjar under Case-2 mechanism of
Government of India.
Apart from the above power projects which are being undertaken by HPGCL for commissioning in 11th
Plan the State Govt./ Govt. of India has also sanctioned following new projects to be set-up in 12th
Plan:
1) 1x660 MW Thermal Unit based on Super Critical Technology at Yamunanagar as an extension
project.
2) 1500 MW Gas based Project planned at Faridabad.
3) Coal block at Mara-to-Mahan in MP with estimated coal reserves of 956 Million Tonnes allocated
jointly to HPGCL and Delhi Govt.
Apart from above HPGCL had been involved in procurement of 2013 MW power under Case-I mode.
HPGCL is also facilitating NPCL in getting all necessary clearance from Govt. of Haryana for setting up
2800MW Nuclear Power plant in the State of Haryana in district Fathehabad.
1.3. Key achievements of HPGCL:
Some of the key achievement of HPGCL during it’s operational regime are mentioned below:
a) 2x300 MW DCRTPP Yamuna Nagar commissioned in record time. First Unit was commissioned in a
record period of 27 months which is the lowest for any coal based green field project in the
country.
b) HPGCL commissioned in quickest possible time India’s first and second 600 MW capacity thermal
Units of RGTPP, Khedar during August 2010 and March 2011 respectively, in a record period of 43
and 49 months as compared to the norms of 44 and 50 months as stipulated by CEA. 600 MW is
the largest sub-critical Unit capacity in the country.
c) 2x660 MW power project at Jhajjar awarded to IPP- first power generation project in Haryana
based on super critical technology.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
7
d) Supply of 1724 MW (out of 2013 MW) power through tariff based competitive bidding under
Case-I guidelines is expected to flow in 2012-13. For balance 389 MW power M/s Lanco had not
come forward for signing of RFP Project documents. Hon’ble Commission has held that it has
jurisdiction in the matter. Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal has also held that Hon’ble HERC has
jurisdiction in the matter. It has also held that the contract has been concluded on issuance of LoI
and accordingly signing of the RFP documents including PPA is just a ministerial act. Presently M/s
Lanco’s appeal is pending before Supreme Court against the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal.
Some of the key achievements of HPGCL as relating to existing Projects are as below:
a) Generation capacity of 2367.2MW added since creation of HPGCL - an increase of around 274%.
b) HPGCL was awarded Gold Shield by Ministry of Power in January 2010 for meritorious
performance relating to early completion of 2x300 MW DCRTPP, Yamunanagar.
c) Central Electricity Authority, New Delhi selected 250 MW Unit-8 of PTPS, Panipat for the award of
“Best Executed 250 MW Thermal Power Project” of Year 2004-05.
d) The Ministry of Power, Govt. of India awarded Meritorious Productivity award to PTPS for good
performance during the year 2003-04 as the power station achieved highest ever PLF of 78.75%
during the year.
e) The 210/250 MW Units (2x210MW+2x250MW) of PTPS, Panipat have performed very well during
2007-08 and achieved a Plant Load Factor of 93.61% which is comparable to the best performing
Power Plants in the Country.
f) The Overall Oil Consumption of 1.66 ml/Unit achieved in 2007-08 is the lowest since formation of
HPGCL.
g) An overall PLF of 82.93% achieved by HPGCL plants in 2009-10 highest since formation of HPGCL.
HPGCL is presently operating three (3) thermal power generation plants, viz. PTPS, Panipat (Unit 1 -
117.8 MW, Unit-2 to 4 - 110 MW each, Unit-6&7 - 210 MW each, Unit-7&8- 250MW each), DCRTPP,
Yamuna Nagar (Unit-1&2 - 300MW each) and RGTPS, Hisar (Unit-1&2 - 600MW each). The Company also
operates a hydro power plant Western Yamuna Canal Hydro Project (62.4 MW) and a Micro Hydro
Power Station in Kakroi (0.3MW). The Unit-wise details of present installed generation capacity of
HPGCL are as given below:
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
8
Table 1: Unit-wise installed capacity of HPGCL Plants
Particulars Installed Capacity as on 31.03.2011 Date of Commissioning / COD
Panipat Thermal Power
Station, Panipat
Unit No-1: 117.8 MW
Unit No-2: 110 MW
Unit No-3: 110 MW
Unit No-4: 110 MW
Unit No-5: 210 MW
Unit No-6: 210 MW
Unit No-7: 250 MW
Unit No-8: 250 MW
01/11/1979
27/03/1980
01/11/1985
11/01/1987
28/03/1989
31/03/2001
28/09/2004
28/01/2005
DCRTPS,Yamuna Nagar Unit No-1: 300 MW
Unit No-2: 300 MW
14/04/2008
24/06/2008
RGTPS, Hisar Unit No-1: 600 MW
Unit No-2: 600 MW
24/08/2010
01/03/2011
Western Yamuna Canal
Hydro Project (Yamuna
Nagar)
Power House A
Unit No-1: 8 MW
Unit No-2: 8 MW
Power House B
Unit No-1: 8 MW
Unit No-2: 8 MW
Power House C
Unit No-1: 8 MW
Unit No-2: 8 MW
Power House D
Unit No-1: 7.2 MW
Unit No-2: 7.2 MW
29/05/1986
13/06/1986
15/05/1987
01/06/1987
27/03/1989
18/04/1989
16/04/2004
12/05/2004
Micro Hydro Power
Station, Kakroi
0.30 MW
Total Capacity 3230.5 MW
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
9
2. Performance of HPGCL Stations over the years and current operational
constraints
2.1. Historical performance of HPGCL stations
The performance of thermal generating stations of HPGCL (formerly HSEB) has significantly improved in
the post reform era. Following graph show the overall performance of the operation parameters since
FY 1988-89:
Figure 1: Pre and Post-reform performance of the power plants of HPGCL (formerly HSEB)
HPGCL, which started with a modest installed generation capacity of 863.3MW of HSEB at the time of
unbundling. Thereafter, during the past 12 years HPGCL has added capacity more than 3 times that it
had as on FY 1998-99. The current installed capacity of HPGCL is 3230.5 MW. In the post reform era, the
plant load factor has also improved significantly. The average PLF between FY 1988-89 to FY 1998-99
was 43.97% which increased to an average value of 67.90% post reform. In FY 2009-10 HPGCL achieved
the highest ever PLF of 82.93%. In the similar way HPGCL has recorded improvement in the other
parameters as given in the following graphs.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Generation (MU) PLF(%) Installed Capacity (MW) Station Heat Rate (kcal /kwh)
Pre-reform Period (HSEB) Post-reform Period (HPGCL)
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
10
Figure 2: Pre and Post-reform performance of the power plants of HPGCL (formerly HSEB)
The auxiliary consumption has decreased by 2.47% from 12.24% in FY 1997-98 to 9.77% in FY 2009-10. It
also can be seen from the graph there is improvement in the oil consumption also. The Unit wise and
plant wise individual performance since the commissioning of the Unit is given in the annexure- .
The performance of HPGCL stations has significantly improved over the past years in comparison to the
performance parameters achieved prior to re-organization of erstwhile HSEB. However, there are
certain reasons for non-achievement of optimum performance parameter mainly during the last two
financial years because of uncontrollable circumstances which has been discussed in the subsequent
sections.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oil Consumption (ml/kwh) Aux.Consumption (%)
Pre-reform period (HSEB) Post-reform period (HPGCL)
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
11
Figure 3: Unit wise life of HPGCL Plants (in year)
The PTPS plant of HPGCL is very old and most of the Units have completed their designed useful life of
25 (as shown in red dotted line) years as obvious from the following figure No 3 .Unit-4&5 of PTPS are
older than 20 (as shown in green dotted line) years. Similarly the Units of Hydel stations of WYC Hydel
Yamunanagar are also nearing completion of their design life of 30-35 years, as obvious from the chart
shown above.
0 3 5 8 10 13 15 18 20 23 25 28 30 33 35
PTPS (1) 117.8 MW
PTPS (2) 110 MW
PTPS (3) 110 MW
PTPS (4) 110 MW
PTPS (5) 210 MW
PTPS (6) 210 MW
PTPS (7) 250 MW
PTPS (8) 250 MW
DCRTPS (1) 300 MW
DCRTPS (2) 300 MW
RGTPS (1) 600 MW
RGTPS (2) 600 MW
WYCHP (A-1) 8 MW
WYCHP (A-2) 8 MW
WYCHP (B-1) 8 MW
WYCHP (B-2) 8 MW
WYCHP (C-1) 8 MW
WYCHP (C-2) 8 MW
WYCHP (D-1) 7.2 MW
WYCHP (D-1) 7.2 MW
Unit-wise life of HPGCL Plants (In Year)
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
12
2.1
.1.
Pa
nip
at
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r S
tati
on
(P
TP
S),
Pa
nip
at
(13
67
.8 M
W)
Ta
ble
2:
His
tori
cal
Op
era
tio
na
l p
ara
me
ters
of
PT
PS
, P
an
ipa
t (P
ost
-re
form
)
De
scri
pti
on
F
Y –
98
(pre
-re
form
) F
Y -
99
F
Y -
00
F
Y -
01
F
Y -
02
F
Y -
03
F
Y -
04
F
Y -
05
F
Y -
06
F
Y -
07
F
Y -
08
F
Y -
09
F
Y –
10
F
Y -
11
FY
- 1
2
(up
to
Oct
’11
)
PT
PS
-1 (
Un
its
I-IV
)
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
34
.39
3
4.7
4
32
.02
3
6.3
2
41
.61
4
4.7
3
72
.45
6
1.6
9
57
.77
6
6.5
9
59
.41
5
7.8
9
68
.38
5
3.3
7
69
.51
Au
x. C
on
sum
pti
on
(%
) 1
2.5
6
12
.86
1
2.9
1
2.6
9
12
.39
1
1.6
6
11
.05
1
2.1
3
11
.75
1
1.5
9
12
.13
1
1.4
8
11
.4
12
1
2.3
5
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
13
25
.67
1
33
8.8
5
12
37
.40
1
40
0.0
6
16
03
.91
1
72
4.1
8
28
00
.20
2
37
7.6
5
22
26
.76
2
56
6.6
2
22
96
.32
2
23
1.4
4
26
81
.4
20
93
.69
1
59
8.7
6
SH
R (
kca
l/k
wh
) 3
86
0
38
60
3
69
5
36
57
3
79
0
37
13
3
49
8
35
67
3
66
5
33
41
3
47
0
34
25
3
22
5
33
49
3
23
0
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
26
.71
2
5.8
9
13
.66
1
0.1
8
5.0
3
6.5
5
4.5
8
5.4
3
5.2
6
2.9
2
2.9
3
3.3
3
2.4
4
5.8
4
.86
GC
V o
f C
oa
l (K
cal/
kg
) 3
90
2
39
02
3
97
9
40
53
4
19
3
42
37
4
25
2
40
91
4
10
9
39
95
3
93
4
39
00
3
80
1
36
53
3
46
7
PT
PS
-2 (
Un
its
V-V
III)
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
83
.89
7
1.6
0
87
.75
7
2.1
9
87
.79
8
8.8
3
85
.36
9
1.8
4
73
.7
91
.09
9
3.6
1
91
.29
9
3.3
8
89
.09
8
8.7
7
Au
x. C
on
sum
pti
on
(%
) 1
1.1
5
10
.62
1
0.2
7
10
.11
9
.40
9
.36
9
.24
9
.8
9.0
6
8.7
4
8.8
1
8.8
9
.13
9
.66
1
0
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
15
43
.17
1
31
7.1
9
16
18
.64
1
32
7.9
4
26
69
.83
3
26
8.0
7
31
49
.06
3
37
9.3
7
59
08
.94
7
34
1.5
1
75
64
.94
7
35
6.9
8
75
25
.43
7
17
9.6
0
41
94
.64
SH
R (
kca
l/k
wh
) 2
81
5
28
15
2
78
6
28
46
2
89
9
29
07
2
93
5
28
58
2
70
3
26
20
2
57
1
25
74
2
56
1
26
79
2
74
0
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
2.5
6
2.3
5
1.7
1
2.0
6
2.1
7
1.8
8
2.0
2
2.8
2
2.9
2
0.8
6
0.5
9
0.8
1
.05
2
.68
1
.52
GC
V o
f C
oa
l (K
cal/
kg
) 3
90
2
39
02
3
97
9
40
53
4
19
3
42
37
4
25
2
40
91
4
10
9
39
95
3
93
4
39
00
3
80
1
36
28
3
44
0
Pa
nip
at
Th
erm
al P
ow
er
Sta
tio
n (
PT
PS
) ,
Pa
nip
at
(13
67
.8 M
W)
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
50
.38
4
6.6
5
50
.02
4
7.9
1
61
.86
6
6.2
6
78
.75
7
1.1
4
68
.53
8
3.1
7
82
.55
8
0.4
8
85
.19
7
7.3
9
82
.47
Au
x. C
on
sum
pti
on
(%
) 1
1.8
0
11
.75
1
1.4
1
11
.43
1
0.6
7
10
.14
1
0.0
8
10
.76
9
.79
9
.48
9
.58
9
.42
9
.73
1
0.1
9
10
.65
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
28
68
.84
2
65
6.0
4
28
56
.04
2
72
7.9
9
42
73
.74
4
99
2.2
5
59
49
.26
5
75
6.6
0
81
35
.70
9
90
8.1
3
98
61
.26
9
58
8.4
2
10
20
6.8
3
92
73
.29
5
79
3.4
0
SH
R (
kca
l/k
wh
) 3
34
2
33
42
3
97
0
32
62
3
25
1
31
87
3
19
1
31
51
2
96
6
28
05
2
78
0
27
72
2
73
6
28
31
2
87
6
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
13
.72
1
4.2
2
6.8
9
6.2
3
3.0
4
3.4
9
3.2
1
3.9
3
.56
1
.39
1
.14
1
.39
1
.41
3
.38
2
.44
GC
V o
f C
oa
l (K
cal/
kg
) 3
90
2
39
02
3
97
9
40
53
4
19
3
42
37
4
25
2
40
91
4
10
9
39
95
3
93
4
39
00
3
80
1
36
36
3
44
9
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
13
Th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce o
f P
TP
S P
an
ipa
t h
as
imp
rov
ed
sig
nif
ica
ntl
y d
uri
ng
FY
Po
st r
efo
rm p
eri
od
til
l F
Y 2
00
9-1
0.
Th
e a
ve
rag
e P
LF f
or
PT
PS
mo
ve
d u
p
fro
m b
are
ly 5
0.8
3%
in
FY
19
97
-98
(P
re-
HP
GC
L p
eri
od
) to
aro
un
d 8
5%
in
20
09
-10
. S
imil
arl
y t
he
av
era
ge
au
xili
ary
co
nsu
mp
tio
n h
ad
re
du
ced
to
aro
un
d
9.4
2%
fr
om
1
1.8
0%
in
F
Y
19
97
-98
. S
ign
ific
an
t im
pro
vem
en
t in
sp
eci
fic
oil
co
nsu
mp
tio
n
ha
s b
ee
n
ach
iev
ed
w
he
rein
th
e
ave
rag
e
con
sum
pti
on
wa
s b
are
ly 1
.41
ml/
kWh
as
com
pa
red
to
a n
orm
ati
ve
co
nsu
mp
tio
n o
f 2
ml/
kW
h.
Th
e i
mp
rov
em
en
t is
mo
re a
pp
are
nt
wh
en
com
pa
red
to
th
e c
on
sum
pti
on
le
ve
l in
FY
19
97
-98
wh
ich
wa
s a
t 1
3.7
2 m
l/kW
h.
Ho
we
ve
r, b
eca
use
of
the
qu
ali
ty o
f co
al
in t
erm
s o
f G
CV
wh
ich
HP
GC
L re
ceiv
ed
at
the
ir p
lan
t th
ere
is
flu
ctu
ati
on
in
th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce p
ara
me
ter
of
the
pla
nts
. H
ow
eve
r, b
eca
use
of
the
qu
ali
ty o
f co
al
in t
erm
s
of
GC
V w
hic
h P
TP
S r
ece
ive
d a
t th
eir
pla
nt
the
re i
s fl
uct
ua
tio
n i
n t
he
pe
rfo
rma
nce
pa
ram
ete
r o
f P
TP
S,
Pa
nip
at
aft
er
FY
20
09
-10
. T
he
oth
er
mo
st
crit
ica
l fa
cto
rs w
hic
h im
pa
ct t
he
ov
era
ll o
pe
rati
ng
no
rms
of
the
pla
nt
are
re
late
d t
o t
he
lif
e o
f it
s re
spe
ctiv
e U
nit
s. U
nit
-1 t
o 4
of
PT
PS
ha
s b
ee
n i
n
use
fo
r q
uit
e lo
ng
an
d i
t is
be
com
ing
in
cre
asi
ng
ly d
iffi
cult
to
ru
n t
he
se U
nit
s o
n o
pe
rati
ng
no
rms
spe
cifi
ed
by
Ho
n’b
le C
om
mis
sio
n.
Th
e r
ea
son
s fo
r sh
ort
fa
ll i
n p
erf
orm
an
ce l
ev
el
of
PT
PS
Pa
nip
at
are
as
un
de
r:
·
Th
e p
oo
r p
erf
orm
an
ce o
f P
TP
S c
an
be
att
rib
ute
d m
ain
ly t
o o
ld U
nit
s (U
nit
- 1
to
4)
of
the
pla
nt
incl
ud
ing
th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce o
f U
nit
– 1
& 2
be
low
th
e e
xpe
cte
d p
erf
orm
an
ce l
ev
el e
ven
aft
er
the
R&
M a
ctiv
itie
s;
·
Fo
r U
nit
-3 &
4,
the
R&
M i
s p
rop
ose
d t
o b
e c
arr
ied
ou
t th
rou
gh
Wo
rld
Ba
nk
fu
nd
ing
wh
ich
is
to b
e s
tart
ed
in
FY
20
13
-14
. T
he
re
po
rt o
f
the
Te
chn
ica
l co
nsu
lta
nt
on
R&
M o
f U
nit
-3 &
4 i
s st
ill
aw
ait
ed
. A
s th
e i
nv
est
me
nts
are
pro
po
sed
un
de
r W
orl
d B
an
k f
un
din
g s
che
me
,
HP
GC
L is
no
t m
ak
ing
an
y a
dd
itio
na
l in
ve
stm
en
t o
n t
he
se t
wo
un
its.
Ho
we
ver,
it
is a
lso
to
be
me
nti
on
ed
he
re t
ha
t, H
PG
CL
is f
ind
ing
it
ve
ry d
iffi
cult
to
ma
inta
in e
ve
n a
t e
xist
ing
pe
rfo
rma
nce
pa
ram
ete
rs f
or
Un
it -
3 &
4 w
ith
ou
t a
ny
in
ve
stm
en
t;
·
Th
e l
ow
PLF
wa
s a
lso
du
e t
o t
he
fo
rce
d o
uta
ge
s o
f U
nit
-1 f
rom
01
.03
.20
10
to
23
.08
.10
du
e t
o t
he
da
ma
ge
of
all
th
e b
ea
rin
gs
of
Tu
rbin
e
& G
en
era
tor
& U
nit
-4 f
rom
20
.04
.20
10
to
27
.5.2
01
0 d
ue
to
hig
h v
ibra
tio
ns
in G
en
era
tor
be
ari
ng
. A
lso
, th
e a
nn
ua
l o
ve
rha
uli
ng
of
Un
it-2
wh
ich
co
mm
en
ced
on
25
.10
.20
10
fo
r 4
5d
ay
s h
as
be
en
ext
en
de
d d
ue
to
un
fore
see
n f
au
lt i
n A
BB
mo
dif
ied
tu
rbin
e;
·
Th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce p
ara
me
ters
ha
ve a
lso
de
teri
ora
ted
as
Un
it-6
, U
nit
-7 &
Un
it-8
we
re u
nd
er
pla
nn
ed
sh
ut
do
wn
as
pe
r th
e l
ow
er
po
we
r
req
uir
em
en
t in
th
e S
tate
. B
ack
ing
do
wn
of
PT
PS
-2 U
nit
s a
lso
co
ntr
ibu
ted
a h
ug
e l
oss
of
40
2.9
8 M
U i
n F
Y 2
01
0-1
1 a
nd
22
8.6
6 M
U i
n F
Y
20
11
-12
up
to S
et’
11
.
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
14
·
Als
o i
t is
a f
act
th
at
as
far
as
PLF
an
d S
HR
is
con
cern
ed
PT
PS
Un
it 1
-4 c
om
pa
res
po
orl
y w
ith
oth
er
such
Un
its
of
sam
e v
inta
ge
;
·
Th
e r
ea
son
of
po
or
pe
rfo
rma
nce
is
als
o d
ue
to
lo
ss o
f g
en
era
tio
n d
ue
to
ba
ckin
g d
ow
n o
f u
nit
s, p
art
ial
loa
d o
pe
rati
on
of
PT
PS
-1
(U
nit
-1
to 4
);
·
Re
ceip
t o
f p
oo
r q
ua
lity
of
coa
l h
av
ing
wit
h l
ow
Ca
lori
fic
va
lue
of
36
36
Kca
l/K
g a
nd
hig
h a
sh c
on
ten
t a
s co
mp
are
d t
o 3
80
1 K
cal/
Kg
in
FY
20
09
-10
. D
ue
to
po
or
qu
alit
y o
f co
al,
oil
su
pp
ort
wa
s fr
eq
ue
ntl
y r
eq
uir
ed
fo
r st
ab
ilit
y o
f th
e f
urn
ace
an
d t
o s
av
e t
he
Un
its
fro
m t
rip
pin
g;
·
Th
e q
ua
nti
ty o
f co
al
po
st s
ign
ing
of
FS
A o
n 1
st A
pri
l 2
00
9 f
or
PT
PS
, P
an
ipa
t w
as
red
uce
d t
o 6
6.0
0 L
ak
h M
T p
er
an
nu
m (
AC
Q)
an
d a
s
com
pa
red
to
85
.35
La
kh
MT
;
·
Exc
ess
ive
no
s. o
f tr
ipp
ing
s o
f th
e U
nit
s 1
to
4 d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-11
du
e t
o v
ari
ou
s re
aso
ns
such
as
bla
de
s o
f th
e t
urb
ine
we
re f
ou
nd
to
be
da
ma
ge
d r
esu
ltin
g i
nto
ve
ry l
on
g f
orc
ed
sh
ut
do
wn
s. A
to
tal
of
90
no
s o
f fo
rce
d o
uta
ge
s o
n P
TP
S u
nit
s- 1
to
4 a
nd
54
no
s o
f o
n P
TP
S
un
its-
5 &
6 u
p t
o O
cto
be
r, 2
01
0 d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-11
fo
rce
d h
igh
er
no
. o
f st
art
up
an
d p
art
ial
loa
d r
un
nin
g n
ece
ssit
ate
s o
il s
up
po
rt f
or
sta
bil
ity
of
the
fu
rna
ce t
he
reb
y i
ncr
ea
sin
g o
il c
on
sum
pti
on
;
·
It i
s a
lso
to
be
no
ted
th
at
the
En
erg
y A
ud
its
of
PT
PS
un
its
2 t
o 6
we
re g
ot
do
ne
du
rin
g A
pri
l, 2
01
0 a
nd
th
at
of
PT
PS
un
it-1
du
rin
g
Se
pte
mb
er,
20
10
fro
m M
/s.
Ev
on
ik E
ne
rgy
Se
rvic
es
Pv
t. L
td.
No
ida
. M
/s E
von
ik h
av
e p
oin
ted
ou
t a
nu
mb
er
of
sho
rtco
min
gs
rela
tin
g t
o
ine
ffic
ien
cy a
nd
wa
sta
ge
of
he
at
/ e
ne
rgy
in v
ari
ou
s e
qu
ipm
en
t’s.
Th
ey
ha
ve a
lso
giv
en
a s
eri
es
of
sho
rt /
me
diu
m /
lo
ng
te
rm
reco
mm
en
da
tio
ns
wh
ich
if
imp
lem
en
ted
wo
uld
re
du
ce t
he
he
at
rate
, o
il co
nsu
mp
tio
n &
au
xili
ary
po
we
r co
nsu
mp
tio
n c
on
sid
era
bly
an
d
imp
rov
e t
he
eff
icie
ncy
& P
LF o
f th
ese
un
its.
Ho
we
ve
r, H
PG
CL
pe
titi
on
wit
h r
eg
ard
to
ad
dit
ion
al
cap
ex
is s
till
pe
nd
ing
wit
h t
he
Ho
n’b
le
com
mis
sio
n;
·
Du
rin
g o
uta
ge
/ p
art
ial
run
nin
g l
oa
d r
un
nin
g o
f th
e U
nit
s, t
he
va
rio
us
Au
xili
ari
es
of
the
Pla
nt
ha
ve t
o b
e k
ep
t ru
nn
ing
at
full
lo
ad
th
ere
by
incr
ea
sin
g t
he
pe
rce
nta
ge
Au
xili
ary
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n;
Wh
ile
th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce o
f P
TP
S P
an
ipa
t h
as
rem
ain
ed
fa
irly
co
nsi
ste
nt
till
FY
20
09
-10
an
d d
eto
ria
ted
th
ere
aft
er
in l
igh
t o
f th
e i
ssu
e m
en
tio
ne
d
ab
ove
. H
PG
CL
pra
ys
to t
he
Ho
n’b
le H
ER
C t
o t
hin
k t
hro
ug
h t
he
se i
ssu
es
wh
ile d
ete
rmin
ing
th
e G
en
era
tio
n T
ari
ff f
or
HP
GC
L.
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
15
2.1
.2.
Fa
rid
ab
ad
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
lan
t (1
65
MW
)
Ta
ble
3:
His
tori
cal
Op
era
tio
na
l p
ara
me
ters
of
Fa
rid
ab
ad
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
lan
t (1
65
MW
)
De
scri
pti
on
FY
– 9
8
(pre
-
refo
rm)
FY
- 9
9
FY
- 0
0
FY
– 0
1
FY
- 0
2
FY
- 0
3
FY
- 0
4
FY
- 0
5
FY
- 0
6
FY
- 0
7
FY
- 0
8
FY
- 0
9
FY
– 1
0
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
44
.41
5
9.4
6
65
.91
5
6.9
1
55
.90
6
7.3
2
54
.88
6
0.0
4
54
.47
4
2.6
4
49
.25
4
2.6
1
55
.7
Au
x. C
on
sum
pti
on
(%
) 1
4.1
8
12
.91
1
2.5
6
13
.02
1
3.3
7
12
.69
1
3.3
9
12
.94
1
3.1
1
4.9
6
14
.82
1
6.3
2
16
.07
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
64
1.9
8
59
.38
9
55
.34
8
22
.61
8
08
.05
9
73
.13
7
95
.38
8
67
.88
7
87
.31
6
16
.36
7
13
.81
5
01
.19
3
83
.77
Sta
tio
n H
ea
t R
ate
(k
cal/
kw
h)
40
79
4
07
9
39
70
4
31
0
43
54
4
27
6
42
71
4
18
6
41
95
4
32
5
48
01
4
51
8
46
04
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
9.7
7
8.0
1
4.8
5
5.1
2
4.5
5
3.1
2
4.3
9
4.4
5
5.5
6
9.2
7
8.8
6
9.6
2
6.0
1
GC
V o
f co
al
(Kca
l/k
g)
45
29
4
52
9
45
49
4
73
2
48
29
4
72
1
46
04
4
43
2
40
83
3
93
2
40
42
4
08
6
38
94
Go
vt.
of
Ha
rya
na
du
rin
g A
ug
ust
, 2
00
5 a
cco
rde
d a
dm
inis
tra
tive
ap
pro
va
l fo
r p
ha
sin
g o
ut
the
old
Un
its
of
FTP
S,
Fa
rid
ab
ad
. T
he
Bo
ard
of
Dir
ect
or
of
HP
GC
L a
lso
co
ncu
rre
d w
ith
th
e d
eci
sio
n o
f th
e G
ove
rnm
en
t d
uri
ng
Oct
ob
er
20
05
. D
ue
to
de
teri
ora
tin
g p
erf
orm
an
ce,
hig
h c
ost
of
ge
ne
rati
on
,
safe
ty a
nd
en
vir
on
me
nta
l co
nce
rns,
Ce
ntr
al
Ele
ctri
city
Au
tho
rity
, N
ew
De
lhi
ha
s a
pp
rov
ed
th
e p
ha
sin
g o
ut
of
the
55
MW
Un
it-2
of
FT
PS,
Fa
rid
ab
ad
. A
cco
rdin
gly
, th
e U
nit
ha
s b
ee
n p
ha
sed
ou
t w
.e.f
. 0
8.0
9.2
00
8.
Th
e o
the
r tw
o U
nit
s a
re a
lso
pla
nn
ed
to
be
ph
ase
d o
ut
by
Ma
rch
20
10
.
2.1
.3.
De
en
ba
nd
hu
Ch
ho
tu R
am
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
lan
t, Y
am
un
a N
ag
ar
(DC
RT
PP
) (6
00
MW
)
Ta
ble
4:
His
tori
cal
Op
era
tio
na
l p
ara
me
ters
of
DC
RT
PP
, Y
am
un
a N
ag
ar
De
scri
pti
on
2
00
8-0
9
20
09
-10
2
01
0-1
1
20
11
-12
(u
pto
Oct
’11
)
De
en
ba
nd
hu
Ch
ho
tu R
am
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
lan
t ,
Ya
mu
na
Na
ga
r (D
CR
TP
P)
(60
0 M
W)
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
69
.05
8
1.3
5
73
.85
7
2.6
3
Au
x.
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
%)
9.3
3
9.2
9
9.7
3
9.4
9
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
31
46
.97
4
27
5.9
1
38
81
.18
2
23
8.0
8
Sta
tio
n H
ea
t R
ate
(k
cal/
kw
h)
24
50
2
38
7
24
79
2
40
6
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
6.3
2
1.7
2
.35
2
.92
Gro
ss C
alo
rifi
c V
alu
e o
f co
al(
Kca
l/k
g)
36
70
3
72
5
35
89
3
59
7
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
16
Th
e r
ea
son
s fo
r sh
ort
fa
ll i
n p
erf
orm
an
ce l
ev
el o
f D
CR
TP
P Y
am
un
an
ag
ar
du
rin
g t
he
pa
st t
wo
ye
ars
are
as
un
de
r:
·
Th
e 3
00
MW
Un
it-2
of
DC
RT
PP
¡s
op
era
tin
g a
t p
art
ial
loa
d o
f a
rou
nd
60
% d
ue
to
th
e s
tru
ctu
ral d
am
ag
e o
f E
SP P
ath
-A h
op
pe
rs;
·
Re
ceip
t o
f p
oo
r q
ua
lity
of
Ru
n-o
f-M
ine
(R
OM
) co
al
fro
m C
CL
ha
vin
g l
ow
Ca
lori
fic
va
lue
of
35
89
Kca
l/K
g a
nd
hig
h a
sh c
on
ten
t a
s
com
pa
red
to
37
25
Kca
l/K
g i
n F
Y 2
00
9-1
0.
Du
e t
o p
oo
r q
ua
lity
of
coa
l th
e S
tati
on
He
at
Ra
te w
as
red
uce
d a
nd
oil
su
pp
ort
wa
s fr
eq
ue
ntl
y
req
uir
ed
fo
r st
ab
ilit
y o
f th
e f
urn
ace
an
d t
o s
av
e t
he
Un
its
fro
m t
rip
pin
g;
·
Be
cau
se o
f in
ten
se &
pro
lon
ge
d m
on
soo
n t
his
ye
ar,
th
e B
ack
ing
do
wn
of
DC
RT
PP
Ya
mu
na
na
ga
r co
ntr
ibu
tes
a h
ug
e g
en
era
tio
n l
oss
of
15
6.5
0 M
U d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-11
an
d 6
9.5
0 M
U u
pto
Se
p’1
1 d
uri
ng
FY
20
11
-12
;
·
Exc
ess
ive
no
s. o
f tr
ipp
ing
s o
f th
e U
nit
s 1
to
2 d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-11
; m
ain
ly d
ue
to
re
aso
ns
such
as
coll
ap
se o
f E
SP
ho
pp
er
an
d o
the
r
em
erg
en
cy w
ork
s in
Un
it-2
, tu
rbin
e v
ibra
tio
n h
igh
at
be
ari
ng
No
.-7
an
d F
au
lt i
n C
&I
con
tro
l ca
ble
, lo
ss o
f fl
am
e,
bo
ile
r tu
be
le
ak
ag
e e
tc;
A t
ota
l o
f 2
2 n
os
of
trip
pin
g D
CR
TP
P u
nit
s- 1
an
d 2
9 n
os
of
trip
pin
g i
n U
nit
-2
we
re o
bse
rve
d d
uri
ng
Ap
ril 2
01
0 t
o J
an
’ 1
1 w
he
rea
s 1
7 n
os.
of
trip
pin
g w
ere
exp
eri
en
ce o
n U
nit
-2 d
uri
ng
FY
20
11
-12
up
to s
ep
’11
. T
his
ha
s re
sult
ed
in
to h
igh
er
no
. o
f st
art
up
wh
ich
ne
cess
ita
ted
oil
sup
po
rt f
or
sta
bil
ity
of
the
fu
rna
ce t
he
reb
y i
ncr
ea
sin
g o
il c
on
sum
pti
on
;
·
Th
e 3
00
MW
Un
it-2
of
DC
RT
PP
Ya
mu
na
na
ga
r a
chie
ve
d a
PLF
of
70
% d
uri
ng
FY
20
08
-09
, 7
7%
du
rin
g F
Y 2
00
9-1
0 a
nd
62
% d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-
11
. A
s p
er
con
tra
ct,
the
pro
vis
ion
al
Ta
kin
g o
ver
(PT
O)
of
Un
it-2
wa
s d
on
e b
y H
PG
CL
on
Au
gu
st 3
1,
20
09
, w
he
rea
s th
e F
ina
l T
ak
ing
Ove
r
(FT
O)
ha
s n
ot
be
en
ach
ieve
d.
·
On
Se
pte
mb
er
25
, 2
01
1 w
hil
e t
he
ma
chin
e w
as
be
ing
re
-ta
ke
n a
fte
r tr
ipp
ing
of
sta
tio
n t
ran
sfo
rme
r o
n e
art
h f
au
lt,
the
ba
rrin
g g
ea
r
mo
tor
trip
pe
d o
n o
ve
rlo
ad
an
d t
he
Tu
rbin
e r
oto
r ca
me
to
sta
nd
sti
ll.
Aft
er
con
sult
ati
on
wit
h R
Infr
a,
SEC
Ch
ina
an
d v
ari
ou
s o
the
r
exp
eri
en
ced
pe
rso
nn
el,
att
em
pts
we
re m
ad
e t
o i
ncr
ea
se t
he
sp
ee
d o
f th
e m
ach
ine
be
yo
nd
60
0 R
PM
bu
t in
all
att
em
pts
, th
e m
ach
ine
go
t
trip
pe
d a
t a
rou
nd
th
e s
pe
ed
of
13
00
RP
M o
n h
igh
vib
rati
on
at
be
ari
ng
No
. 1
, a
fte
rwa
rd U
nit
-2 i
s u
nd
er
forc
ed
bre
ak
-do
wn
co
nd
itio
n ;
In l
igh
t o
f th
e i
ssu
e m
en
tio
ne
d a
bo
ve.
HP
GC
L p
ray
s to
th
e H
on
’ble
HE
RC
to
th
ink
th
rou
gh
th
ese
iss
ue
s w
hile
de
term
inin
g t
he
Ge
ne
rati
on
Ta
riff
for
HP
GC
L.
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
17
2.1
.4.
Ra
jiv
Ga
nd
hi
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
roje
ct (
RG
TP
P),
His
ar
(12
00
MW
)
Ta
ble
5:
His
tori
cal
Op
era
tio
na
l p
ara
me
ters
of
RG
TP
P,
His
ar
De
scri
pti
on
2
00
8-0
9
20
09
-10
2
01
0-1
1
20
11
-12
(u
pto
Oct
’11
)
Ra
jiv
Ga
nd
hi
Th
erm
al
Po
we
r P
roje
ct (
RG
TP
P),
His
ar
(12
00
MW
)
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
- -
- 4
8.0
8
Au
x.
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
%)
- -
- 7
.05
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
- -
- 2
96
3.3
6
Sta
tio
n H
ea
t R
ate
(k
cal/
kw
h)
- -
- 2
84
6
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n (
ml/
kw
h)
- -
- 3
.61
Gro
ss C
alo
rifi
c V
alu
e o
f co
al
(Kca
l/k
g)
- -
- 3
30
8
Th
e r
ea
son
s o
f u
nd
er-
pe
rfo
rma
nce
of
RG
TP
P,
His
ar
sin
ce i
ts C
OD
are
as
un
de
r:
·
Th
e c
oa
l is
su
pp
lie
d t
o a
ll t
he
th
erm
al
ge
ne
rati
ng
sta
tio
ns
of
HP
GC
L b
ase
d o
n F
ue
l su
pp
ly a
gre
em
en
t (F
SA
) e
xce
pt
for
RG
TP
P,
wh
ere
co
al
is b
ein
g p
rocu
red
on
Mo
U r
ou
te.
In c
ase
of
RG
TP
P,
the
pe
rce
nta
ge
of
coa
l re
ceip
t w
as
57
.41
% d
uri
ng
FY
20
10
-11
an
d 7
8.7
0%
du
rin
g F
Y
20
11
-12
til
l S
ep
’11
;
·
RG
TP
P,
His
ar
is g
ett
ing
sig
nif
ica
nt
qu
an
tum
of
coa
l fro
m M
CL
are
a w
hic
h i
s o
f p
oo
r q
ua
lity
an
d h
as
ab
ou
t 4
0-4
2 p
er
cen
t a
sh c
on
ten
t;
·
Th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce p
ara
me
ter
of
RG
TP
P i
s a
lso
low
on
acc
ou
nt
of
sta
bil
iza
tio
n i
ssu
es
an
d i
na
de
qu
acy
an
d l
ow
qu
ali
ty o
f co
al;
·
Th
e R
GT
PP
, H
isa
r w
hic
h i
s a
su
b-c
riti
cal
pla
nt
ha
vin
g d
esi
gn
ca
lori
fic
va
lue
of
40
00
kca
l/k
g i
s b
are
ly r
ece
ivin
g c
oa
l h
av
ing
ca
lori
fic
va
lue
in
the
ra
ng
e o
f 3
50
0 k
cal/
kg
to
37
00
kca
l/ k
g.
Ta
ble
6:
His
tori
cal
Op
era
tio
na
l p
ara
me
ters
of
HP
GC
L
HP
GC
L T
he
rma
l
FY
– 9
8
(pre
-
refo
rm)
FY
- 9
9
FY
- 0
0
FY
- 0
1
FY
- 0
2
FY
- 0
3
FY
- 0
4
FY
- 0
5
FY
- 0
6
FY
- 0
7
FY
- 0
8
FY
- 0
9
FY
– 1
0
FY
- 1
1
FY
- 1
2
(up
to
Oct
’11
)
Pet
itio
n f
or A
pp
rov
al o
f T
arif
f fo
r th
e y
ear
FY
20
12
-13
18
HP
GC
L T
he
rma
l
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
35
10
.74
3
51
5.4
1
38
11
.38
3
55
0.6
0
50
81
.79
5
96
5.4
0
67
44
.64
6
62
4.4
8
89
23
.01
1
05
24
.49
1
05
75
.07
1
32
36
.58
1
48
66
.51
1
31
54
.47
1
09
94
.84
Pla
nt
Loa
d F
act
or
(%)
49
.17
4
9.2
4
53
.24
4
9.7
3
60
.80
6
6.4
4
74
.91
6
9.4
6
67
.00
7
8.7
8
78
.94
7
5.0
1
82
.93
7
6.2
8
67
.58
Au
x. C
on
sum
pti
on
(%
) 1
2.2
4
12
.04
1
1.7
0
11
.80
1
1.1
1
10
.56
1
0.4
7
11
.04
1
0.0
8
9.8
0
9.9
3
9.6
6
9.7
7
10
.06
9
.44
Oil
Co
nsu
mp
tio
n
(ml/
kw
h)
12
.99
1
2.7
0
6.3
8
5.9
7
3.2
9
3.4
3
3.3
5
3.9
7
3.7
4
1.8
5
1.6
6
2.8
7
1.6
1
3.0
8
2.8
5
SH
R (
kca
l/kw
h)
35
22
3
52
2
37
72
3
50
5
34
32
3
36
5
33
18
3
28
7
30
74
2
89
4
29
16
2
76
2
26
84
2
72
8
27
72
We
ste
rn Y
am
un
a C
an
al
Hyd
el (6
2.4
MW
)
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
24
6.5
5
26
8.1
3
23
9.6
0
24
1.8
1
22
9.1
5
24
6.6
9
25
2.8
9
29
0.4
8
25
8.3
3
25
5.7
2
27
0.3
1
28
2.3
9
23
5.4
2
27
2.7
0
18
3.6
6
HP
GC
L T
ota
l (T
he
rma
l an
d H
yd
ro =
32
30
.5 M
W)
Ge
ne
rati
on
(M
U)
37
57
.29
3
78
3.5
4
40
50
.98
3
79
2.4
1
53
10
.94
6
21
2.0
0
69
97
.53
6
91
4.9
6
91
81
.33
1
07
80
.21
1
08
45
.38
1
35
18
.97
1
51
01
.93
1
34
27
.17
1
11
78
.50
Wh
ile
th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce h
as
rem
ain
ed
fa
irly
co
nsi
ste
nt
till
FY
20
09
-10
fo
r H
PG
CL,
th
e p
erf
orm
an
ce p
ara
me
ter
ha
s sl
ipp
ed
do
wn
wa
rd d
ue
to
th
e
un
fore
see
n a
nd
un
con
tro
llab
le c
ircu
mst
an
ces.
In
th
is r
eg
ard
HP
GC
L e
xpe
ct f
rom
th
e H
on
’ble
Co
mm
issi
on
to
lo
ok
at
the
ab
ove
me
nti
on
ed
spe
cifi
c is
sue
s w
hil
e d
ete
rmin
ing
th
e G
en
era
tio
n T
ari
ff f
or
HP
GC
L fo
r th
e F
Y2
01
2-1
3.
Th
e p
eti
tio
ne
r h
um
bly
su
bm
its
the
se i
ssu
es
in t
he
sub
seq
ue
nt
sect
ion
of
the
pe
titi
on
.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
19
2.2. Operational constraints of HPGCL Power plants
2.2.1 Issues related to Quantity of coal
Presently HPGCL has linkage with CCL, BCCL, NCL and WCL effective from 1st April, 2009. Besides this
HPGCL is importing 10% coal as mandated by Govt. of India. HPGCL would like to put forth to the
Hon’ble Commission that the domestic supply of coal does not suffice the annual requirements of
coal as is evident from the table below:
Table 7: Raw Coal linkages of HPGCL for FY 11-12
Name of the Company Actual contracted Quantity(In Lakh MT) Percentage
Contribution PTPS DCRTPP RGTPP
CCL 22.90 28.00 - 35.8%
BCCL 18.50 - - 13.0%
NCL 16.00 - - 11.2%
WCL 8.60 - - 6.0%
MCL (Raw) - - 33.83 23.8%
MCL (Washed) - - - 0.0%
Import 6.00 2.00 6.50 10.2%
Total Tie-up of Indian Coal 66 28 33.83 100%
Coal Transit Loss upto Sep’11(%) 5.26% 9.09% 6.96%
Receipt of coal after Transit loss 62.52 25.45 31.47
Annual Requirement of Indian coal 68.67 28.33 67.45
Shortage of Indian coal 6.14 2.87 35.97
It is also pertinent to note that the coal received from the indigenous coal block consists of huge
amount of stones and boulders which has a significant impact on achievement of specified Technical
parameters.
The coal shortage position is further aggravated on account of very poor coal realization from some
coal companies as can be seen from the table given below. This results in payment of huge
performance incentive to some coal companies in terms of FSA for delivery of coal over and above
90% of Actual Contracted Quantity (ACQ). The overall realization of coal from domestic sources is
provided in the table below. As may be observed from the table that there is a significant shortfall in
receipt of coal from most of the domestic sources forcing HPGCL to depend upon the usage of
imported coal.
Table 8: Coal supply position of HPGCL Thermal power Plants
Plant PTPS Panipat (In lac MT) RGTPP Hisar (In lac MT) DCRTPP Yamunanagar (In lac
MT)
Year Linkage Receipt Realizati
on (%) Linkage Receipt
Realizati
on (%) Linkage Receipt
Realizati
on (%)
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
20
Plant PTPS Panipat (In lac MT) RGTPP Hisar (In lac MT) DCRTPP Yamunanagar (In lac
MT)
2005-06 75.90 59.02 77.76 - - - - - -
2006-07 83.00 67.93 81.84 - - - - - -
2007-08 83.70 66.67 79.65 - - - - - -
2008-09 85.35 68.74 80.54 - - - 33.45 22.60 67.57
2009-10 66.00 74.71 113.20 - - - 27.96 25.25 90.29
2010-11 66.00 71.31 107.77 37.71 21.65 57.41 27.96 27.13 97.03
2011-12
(upto
Sep’11)
31.02 37.82 121.92 23.43 18.44 78.70 13.14 11.63 88.51
Further the coal is supplied to all the thermal generating stations of HPGCL based on Fuel supply
agreement (FSA) except for RGTPP, where coal is being procured on MoU route. In case of RGTPP,
the percentage of coal receipt was 57.41% during FY 2010-11 and 78.70% during FY 2011-12 till
Sep’11. Even in case of DCRTPP, Yamuna Nagar where the coal is procured through FSA route, the
quantity of coal received was 67.57% and 90.29% during the FY2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively.
During FY201-12 till Sep’11, the quantity received was 88.51%. The case highlights the events where
coal quantity received is less than the linkage. It is submitted that the shortage of coal supply is
appreciated as a national constraint across all utilities and MoP itself is suggesting the import of coal
in order to meet the shortfall.
As evident from the tables above that post signing of FSA on 1st
April 2009, the coal linkages for
PTPS, Panipat was reduced to 66.00 Lakh Tons per annum (ACQ) and that for DCRTPP, Yamunanagar
was reduced to 28 Lakh Tons per annum (ACQ). Here it also to be noted that there is no FSA for coal
supply at RGTPP, Hisar and the supply of coal is through MoU. Apart from that RGTPP, Hisar is also
getting coal through diversion from NCL which was earlier supplying coal to PTPS plants. Post
diversion PTPS is getting equivalent quantum of coal from BCCL.
Further, there are also Infrastructure constraints at coalfield under the command area of Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited (MCL) that has significant impact on the evacuation and supplies of coal. Millions
of tonnes of coal stocked at various pit heads could not be evacuated despite the best efforts of the
coal mining company due to poor and narrow roads which have not been renovated for years. It is to
be noted that RGTPP, Hisar is getting significant quantum of coal from MCL area. The table below
shows the Coal company-wise status of shortage during FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12.
Table 9: Number of coal Rakes received at HPGCL power stations during FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12
Coal Company Linkage/Mo
U Received
Shortag
e
Linkage/Mo
U Received Shortage
PTPS, Panipat FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 (upto Oct’11)
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
21
Coal Company Linkage/Mo
U Received
Shortag
e
Linkage/Mo
U Received Shortage
CCL 600 303 297 332 386 -54
BCCL 516 1273 -757 386 733 -347
NCL 432 342 90 140 116 24
WCL 231 131 100 127 47 80
Unknown / diverted 0 66 -66 0 12 0
Total PTPS* 1779 2115 -336 985 1294 -309
RGTPP, Hisar FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 (upto Oct’11)
MCL 931 614 317 673 399 274
SCCL 52 5 47 191 144 47
Total RGTPP 983 619 364 864 543 321
DCRTPP, Yamuna Nagar FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 (upto Oct’11)
CCL 729 746 -17 403 325 78
HPGCL(Indigenous
sources) FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 (upto Oct’11)
Total 3,491 3,480 11 2,252 2,162 90
In spite of receiving more than 100% coal as compared to the ACQ, the coal stock at Panipat
remained low and insufficient. At times the power plant operated on hand to mouth basis. This
clearly indicate that the current ACQ is insufficient and the same will have to be augmented to
atleast 72 lakh tonnes per annum from 66 lakh tonnes per annum. Apart from this, HPGCL has to pay
additional amount as incentive to coal company in case of additional supply of coal over and above
ACQ. The table shows the month-wise coal linkage and receipt at PGCL plants.
Table 10: Month-wise Receipt of Coal at HPGC Power Stations during FY 2010-11 (upto 10.03.2011)
Month
Coal
Linkage (as
per FSA)
Coal receipt
during the
month (MT)
Coal Linkage
(as per FSA)
Coal receipt
during the
month (MT)
Coal Linkage
(as per FSA)
Coal receipt
during the
month (MT)
PTPS Panipat RGTPP, Hisar DCRTPP, Yamunanagar
April,10 550000 570316 462500 129220 233000 249930
May,10 550000 666538 462500 103090 233000 210678
June,10 550000 568604 462500 149630 233000 240553
July,10 484000 470445 462500 79495 205000 268738
August, 10 484000 540972 462500 145145 205000 222662
Sept. 10 484000 517867 462500 170495 205000 261148
Oct. 10 550000 623288 462500 226660 233000 147264
Nov. 10 550000 578069 462500 280973 233000 177473
Dec. 10 550000 649377 462500 233352 233000 188415
Jan, 11 616000 664411 462500 222700 261000 204657
Feb, 11 616000 608132 462500 321210 261000 199305
Mar, 11 (upto
10.03.2011) 198710 174707 149194 89560 84194 82729
Total 6182710 6632726 5236694 2151530 2619194 2453552
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
22
To sort-out the issue of quantity of coal in HPGCL a committee was formed to explore the possibility
of the additional coal quantity in HPGCL Thermal Power Plant for the Financial Year 2011-12 and was
assigned to perform the following functions:
a) To explore availability of additional coal from existing subsidiaries of Coal India Ltd to meet
with the shortfall of coal for Thermal Power Plants of HPGCL;
b) To ensure the supply of good quality coal free from stones, boulders as per FSA already in
force for HPGCL thermal power plants.
c) To suggest additional measures to be taken for procurement of indigenous/ imported coal
by taking into account the projected receipt vis-a-vis the projected consumption of coal for
the year 2011-12;
Based on the recommendation of the committee, MoU was signed between SCCL and HPGCL for
supply of 5.0 Lac Tonne ‘D’/ ‘E’ grade coal from e-auction basket for the period from Feb’11 to
June’11. SCCL could supply approx. 44,000 MT coal and further suspended the movement of coal
rakes due to non-availability of spare coal. Accordingly, SCCL has been requested to extend the
period of MoU for another 6 months vide letter dated 17.06.2011. So, despite best efforts including
the possibility of e-auction, however, the quantity of coal received by the Units is not sufficient to
achieve full load and hence it will have an impact on the performance also. It is also to be noted that
the scarcity of coal has resulted into PLF reduction, Plant availability factor reduction, partial
operation of Units leading to higher auxiliary consumption etc.
2.2.2 Issues related to Quality of coal
Besides the hitches in shortage in supply of coal, HPGCL is plagued with the supply of inferior quality
of coal. The gross calorific value of coal supplied by the collieries is deteriorating over the years and
is much lower than the design calorific value of the boilers. The table below shows the design
calorific value for the HPGCL power plants:
Table 11: Design calorific value of HPGCL thermal Power Plants
Power Station PTPS,Panipat RGTPP,Hisar DCRTPP,Yamunanagar
Unit Unit-1 to 5 Unit-6 to 8 Unit-1&2 Unit-1&2
Design Calorific value (Kcal/kg) 4800 4000 4000 4000
However, the coal received by HPGCL in its Plants has witnessed a gradual decline in the quality with
year on year decline in GCV. The table below presents the annual average GCV of coal received by
HPGCL for its various plants.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
23
Table 12: Calorific value of coal received at HPGCL Plants
Year PTPS, Panipat(kCal/Kg) RGTPP, Hisar(kCal/Kg) DCRTPP, Yamuna Nagar (kCal/Kg)
1998-99 3,902 - -
1999-00 3,979 - -
2000-01 4,053 - -
2001-02 4,193 - -
2002-03 4,237 - -
2003-04 4,252 - -
2004-05 4,091 - -
2005-06 4,109 - -
2006-07 3,995 - -
2007-08 3,934 - -
2008-09 3,900 - 3,670
2009-10 3,801 - 3,725
2010-11 3,636 3,034 3,589
2011-12* 3,506 3,117 3,606
2011-12
(post-
blending)*
3,707 3,742 4,000
* GCV for 6 months ending September 2011.
The trend of deteriorating GCV can be seen in the table above, where the GCV of coal received for
PTPS has declined from 3,934kCal/Kg in 2007-08 to 3,506kCal/Kg, during the ensuing year. The GCV
of coal received for RGTPP during the year FY 2010-11 and current year FY 2011-12 has been
extremely poor. As despite blending upto10% of the imported coal (GCV of 6200kCal/Kg) the
average GCV achieved is around 3,742kCal/Kg.
High percentage of ash content in coal:
The real condition of raw coal received at HPGCL plants is that the percentage of ash content in coal
is in the range of 31% - 52%. Such high ash percentage results in faster erosion of boiler parts and
frequent breakdown of HPGCL Units.
The quality of coal plays an important role to deliver optimal operations of a thermal power project.
It also has impact on the operations and maintenance (O&M) cost, Station Heat Rate (SHR), auxiliary
consumption and secondary fuel oil consumption. It may be noted that deteriorating coal quality
results in:
a. Higher ash content leads to higher fuel consumption thereby having a detrimental effect on
SHR;
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
24
b. Chokage of pulverisers causes either partial loading of mills or forced outage thereby affecting
the plant PLF or Availability;
c. Increased erosion in the boiler tubes causing frequent tube leakages and forced shutdowns
thereby reducing the PLF;
d. Increased auxiliary consumption on account of increased fuel consumption to maintain the
required thermodynamic parameters;
e. Increased specific fuel oil consumption to address flame stability and required furnace
temperature;
f. lowering boiler efficiency and erosion of boiler tubes leading to high outages and high wear
and tear of milling and coal carrying system;
g. Increased usage of auxiliaries of Coal Handling Plant and Ash Handling Plant on account of
poor coal quality and high ash content respectively;
The quality of coal impacts the coal handling systems, feeders, pulverizers and burners. The largest
impact will be on the pulverizer, where an increased throughput can not only lead to increased
auxiliary consumption, higher maintenance and potential limitations on the maximum achievable
load, but will also reduce the availability of the Unit through more failures and a decrease in the
maximum generation capability of the Unit.
As the quality of coal decreases and the fuel burn rate increases, the quantity of flue gas traveling
through the steam generator increases. Coupled with the increase in ash content, this causes an
increase in tube failures, impacting both maintenance and availability.
It is also pertinent to note that the coal received from the indigenous coal block consists of huge
amount of stones and boulders which sometimes lead to choking and/or damages the coal handling
equipment. The same ultimately impacts the overall technical performance of the Units. HPGCL is
making efforts and is pursuing the matter with the coal companies to check the quality of coal being
supplied to the stations.
Although HPGCL is making all effort to overcome the coal related issues but the issues related to the
colliery side are beyond the control of HPGCL.
2.2.3 Washing of coal
Like most of the power generating companies, HPGCL is also in a process of arranging handsome
quantity of washed coal which is billed on delivered at destination basis. For this, HPGCL has
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
25
initiated the efforts for improving the quality of coal at RGTPS, Khedar, Hisar and issued work order
for washing and supply of washed coal to RGTPP, Khedar, Hisar. HPGCL has taken these steps with
the following objectives:
• Washing of indigenous Coal supplied by MCL to improve GCV and to reduce ash content.
• Washing of coal reduces cost of generation and wear and tear of equipment due to better
GCV and reduced ash content.
RGTPP, Hisar is having coal linkage of 5.55 MTPA (Million tonne per annum) of ‘F’ grade coal with
MCL which is being washed by four (4) washery operators. The details are given in the table below:-
Table 13: Details coal of Washery Operators in HPGCL
Sl. Name of Washery Operators Ordered
quantity (MTPA) Location
1. M/s ACB (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1.39 Himgir Coal Washery, Distt. Sundargarh. Orissa
2. M/s Bhatia International Ltd., 1.39 Chhualiberna, Belphar, Jharsughda (Orissa)
3. M/s Global Coal & Mining Pvt.
Ltd., 0.92
Near Lakhanpur OCO, P.O. Ubuda via Belphar, Distt.
Jharsughda (Orissa)
4. M/s Gupta Coalfields
&Washeries Ltd., 1.85
Earth Mineral Co. Ltd.(Subsidiary Gupta Coalfields
&Washeries), Plot No. 38(p), Village: Kirarama, Post-
Bandhbahal, Distt. Jharsughda, Orissa-768211
HPGCL is also exploring the possibility of appointing washery operators for their other Thermal
power stations.
2.2.4 Dependence on imported coal
Looking at the unique characteristics of the coal in terms of quality and availability for the HPGCL
plant from indigenous sources, the dependence of HPGCL has increased on the imported coal. On
the other hand HPGCL based on its internal observations is of the view that the cost of procurement
of coal through e-auction is more expensive than imported coal. Accordingly, HPGCL has placed an
order with PEC for import of 14.5 Lac MT coal at fixed FOB of USD 83.75/MT & USD 85.75 / MT for
PTPS, DCR TPS & RGTPS respectively for FY 2011-12. The landed cost of the same is estimated at Rs.
5294.14/MT, Rs. 5378.74 / MT and Rs. 5346.42 / MT for PTPS, DCRTPS and RGTPS for FY 2011-12.
Further, based on the order placed to M/s PEC for FY 2011-12, the cost per GCV of indigenous coal
and imported coal has minor differences which are proposed to be recovered through FPA. The cost-
benefit of the imported coal is also attached as the annexure with this petition which indicates that
overall there is negligible difference in cost per GCV of coal after blending vis-à-vis cost per GCV of
Indigenous coal. Hence under the given circumstances, procurement of imported coal is a forced
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
26
alternative on account of poor quality of indigenous coal. Accordingly, HPGCL hereby prays to the
Hon’ble Commission to allow coal import beyond 10% as mandated by Govt. of India and also to
procure coal through e-auction process as well as from private sources to meet the coal shortage in
HPGCL.
2.2.5 Moisture Loss:
One of the reasons of Transit loss in coal arises due to the difference in the quantum of coal loaded
at the loading point by the Coal Company and the coal received at the unloading point in the Power
plant. Such losses generally arise on account of
· Superficial Surface Moisture in the washed coal
· Evaporation of moisture as well as powdered coal during transportation of coal;
HPGCL for its RGTPP, Khedar, Hisar power plant IPGCL is getting washed coal to the extent of 5.5
MTPA in FY 2011-12 pursuant to the contract with four (4) washery operators. During benefaction of
coal through washing technique, coal absorbs water resulting in higher weight at the time of loading.
The extra moisture evaporates during transit and storage. Therefore, usage of Washed coal leads to
higher moisture content and results into higher losses during transit. The loss of approx. 3% is due to
extra moisture in washed coal used in the RGTPP, Hisar power Stations. It is submitted that the
higher coal transit loss in terms of moisture loss is beyond the control of the petitioner.
2.3. Coal transit loss
During the process of extraction from the mine upto loading to the boiler, the coal passes through
various stages of stacking, reclaiming, loading, transportation, un-loading, crushing, etc. At various
stages water is sprayed to prevent spontaneous combustion and minimize coal dust pollution. This
results in increased moisture content in coal and corresponding deterioration in its quality and also
adds to the weight of coal at the loading point. Thus, the coal when weighed at the loading point
contains water whereas when weighted at the unloading point, there is a loss in weight due to
evaporation of moisture/volatile matter during transportation and due to pilferage loss. The key
factors attributing to transit loss of coal are:
i. Evaporation of surface moisture in transit,
ii. Error/Deviations in Weighbridges,
iii. Coal theft in transit,
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
27
iv. Long distances involved in coal transport also contributes to transit loss,
In this section, the Petitioner hereby requests the Hon’ble Commission to allow the actual transit
losses as the same is largely an uncontrollable factor. The following section highlights the regulatory
provision related to Transit loss which is enforced by different regulatory commissions.
2.3.1. Regulatory provisions for transit loss
CERC (Terms and condition of Tariff) Regulation for FY 2009-14
As per clause 21 (7) of the regulation, CERC notified that in case of coal/ lignite the landed cost of
fuel shall be after considering normative transit and handling losses as percentage of the quantity of
coal or lignite dispatched by the coal or lignite supply company during the month as given below:
· Pithead generating stations : 0.2%
· Non-pithead generating stations : 0.8%
CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009, Statement of Objects and Reasons
In the statements of objects and reasons for the terms and conditions of Tariff regulation 2009 the
CERC has clarified that the norms for transit losses has been specified based on the actual transit and
handling losses of the NTPC stations for the year 2004-05 to 2007-08.
“Transit and Handling losses {Regulation 21(7)}”
25.1 The Commission proposed the norms for the transit and handling losses of coal/lignite in the
draft regulation as under:
· Pit Head Station - 0.2%
· Non Pit Head Station - 0.6%
25.2 Most of the beneficiaries and state utilities have submitted during the hearing and in their
written submissions that the above norms of transit and handling losses are too stringent
and cannot be achieved by them. They have further, submitted that the transit and handling
losses in respect of their stations are in excess of 2%. They have serious concerns that the
norms as per CERC if adopted by the SERCs would lead to irreparable losses for them. They
sought to specify norms for the state utilities as well as in this regard.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
28
25.3 It needs to be appreciated that the CERC is specifying norms based on the data of NTPC
stations available with them. The actual transit and handling losses for the year 2004-05 and
2007-08 of NTPC stations are as follows:
Table 14: NTPC Thermal Power Plants details
Sl. Stations Capacity
(MW)
COD of
last Unit FY-05 FY-06 FY-07 FY-08
Average
(%)
Non Pit-Head Stations
1 Dadri (4x210) 840 1.12.1995 0.52 0.66 0.6 0.78 0.64
2 Unchahar (2x210+2x210+210) 1050 1.1.2007 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.64 0.61
3 Simhadri (2x500) 1000 1.3.2003 0.17 0.54 0.72 0.71 0.54
4 Badarpur (3x95 +2x210) 705 1.4.1982 0.56 0.57 0.69 0.77 0.65
5 Tanda (4x110) 440 20.2.1998 0.49 0.52 0.4 0.25 0.42
6 Kahalgaon (4x210) 840 1.8.1996 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.22
7 Farrakka (3x200+2x500) 1600 1.7.1996 0.33 0.34 0.28 0.2 0.29
Average 0.48
Pit-Head Stations
1 Talchar (2x500 + 4x500) 3000 1.8.2005 0.02 0.07 0.12 0.2 0.10
2 Rihand (2x500 + 2x500) 2000 1.4.2006 0.08 0.05 0.18 0.25 0.14
3 Korba (3x200+3x500) 2100 1.6.1990 0.02 0.12 0.28 0.23 0.16
4 Singrauli (5x200+2x500) 2000 1.5.1998 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10
5 Ramagundam
(3x200+3x500+1x500) 2600 25.3.2005 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.23
6 Vindhyachal
(6x210+2x500+2x500) 3260 15.7.2007 0.18 0.15 0.22 0.23 0.19
7 Talchar taken over (4x60+2x110) 460 3.6.1995 0.16 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.23
Average 0.16
25.4 It can be seen that average transit and handling losses of pit head stations are of the order of
0.16%. In case of non-pit head stations, namely Dadri, Unchahar, Simhadri and Badarpur, the
transit and handling losses are of the order of 0.54% in Simhadari to 0.6% in Badarpur. In
case of Tanda, Kahalgaon, Farakka, these are much less than other non-pit stations. In case
of Kahalgaon & Farakka, the reason for low losses is that these are supplied coal through
MGR system but a substantial quantity is also supplied through distant mines. As such, it
would not be reasonable to treat these stations at non-pit head stations. The transit and
handling losses for non-pit stations like Dadri, Unchahar, Simhadri, and Badarpur in the year
2007-08 ranges between 0.64% to 0.78%.
25.5 In view of this, we are of the opinion that the norms of 0.6% for non-pit head station would
not suffice and hence we are retaining the existing norm of 0.8%. In respect of pit head
stations, norms of 0.2% appear to be in order.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
29
However the CERC has also clarified in point no 25.6 that
25.6 As regards norms for the state sector projects, the Commission expects the State
Commissions to specify suitable norms after due regard to the actual situation and
distance involved in the transportation of coal in respect of stations being regulated by
them.
Keeping in mind the fact that transit loss depends upon uncontrollable factors like long distance of
transit from coalfields to the generating station and its effect on evaporation, wind, seepage, theft
and pilferage in transit; HPGCL prays to the Hon’ble HERC to revise the norms in due consideration
the approach taken by other SERCs and the actual situation in case of the HPGCL as explained below:
HERC (Terms and condition for determination of Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2008
Even the Hon’ble HERC in its Generation tariff regulation has talked about relaxation of norms as
state below:
As per HERC regulation, the landed cost of coal for the purpose of computation of energy charges
shall be arrived at after considering 0.8% normative transit and handling losses of the quantity of
coal dispatched by the coal supply company. The cost shall be considered as per the notifications of
the central government or coal companies. In the absence of any recent notification, the weighted
annual average cost of the current year adjusted for known changes shall be considered as the cost
while computing generation tariff. The commission may relax the norm in the light of achievability
of the norm and circumstances specific to the generating stations.
2.3.2. Experience from other states
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission
In Gujarat, GERC approved the coal transit loss of 1.4% for generating stations at Gandhinagar and
Wanakbori Power stations. Torrent Power appealed before APTEL that this cannot be the basis for
the comparison with the transit losses as Torrent procures coal directly from the mines and
Gandhinagar and Wanakbori power stations are using washed coal. After analysis in the matter
APTEL found that the transit losses in the Railway transportation do occur as there is no control of
the generators. Coal transportation in open wagons of unwashed coal procured directly from the
mines which has larger lumps of coal are more prone to pilferage unlike the washed coal. Thus,
APTEL in its judgment dated 23rd
March 2010 ordered the Hon’ble GERC to give consideration to
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
30
washed and unwashed coal and told GERC to decide the increase percentage of allowable coal
transit losses for Torrent Power Plants.
Punjab Electricity Regulatory Commission
In PSPCL Tariff order for FY2011-12, in case of coal other than PANAM Coal (Board’s Captive Coal
Mine), transit loss of 2% has been allowed by the Hon’ble PSERC. The table below gives the plant
wise details of transit loss approved by the commission:
Table 15: Transit loss (%) approved by PSERC
Name of
Power Station
Approved by PSERC
in TO for FY-10
Approved by PSERC in
True up for FY2009-10
Approved by PSERC
for FY2010-11
Approved by
PSERC for FY-12
GNDTP 0.66% 2% 2% 2%
GGSSTP 1.14% 2% 2% 2%
GHTP 1.16% 2% 2% 2%
Bihar Electricity Regulatory Commission
For Barauni Thermal Power Station (BTPS) of Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) the transit loss of
3.8% has been approved by Hon’ble BERC in its Tariff order for FY 2011-12.
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Judgment on Appeal No 26 of 2008 dated 07.04.2011:
Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited Versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
(DERC)
Coal Transit loss for IPGCL has been estimated to be 3.80% during the control period as well as
during FY 2011-12 as against the approved transit loss of 0.80%. IPGCL appealed against the DERC’s
order before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity. On which APTEL gave the ruling on
07.04.2011 that
“According to the Appellant, the State Commission has allowed a normative coal transit loss of 0.8%
by holding that the same is nationally accepted loss level as prescribed in the Tariff Regulations of the
Central Commission. It is noticed that the State Commission has rejected the claim of the Appellant
merely on the ground that NTPC had not challenged the coat transit loss for the Dadri and Badarpur
Stations which requires the same washing of coal. As pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the
Appellant, the ground that NTPC had been allowed only 0.8% coal transit loss and the same had not
been challenged by the NTPC cannot be the valid ground to deny the claim of the Appellant. The
important aspect that the State Commission has failed to consider is that the transit loss cannot be
the same both for unwashed and washed coal. The weight of the coal at the time of loading is
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
31
significantly increased due to higher moisture content which evaporates during transit and storage.
We notice that the State Commission has not given a reasoned order regarding transit loss. Instead
of examining the transit loss in case of the Appellant’s power station the State Commission has
noticed that the use of washed coal is likely to improve the functioning of the plant. This matter,
therefore, needs re-examination. Therefore, the State Commission is required to determine the actual
coal transit loss in respect of the Appellant’s Power Station without comparing the coal transit loss
with the NTPC. This point is answered accordingly”.
Accordingly the Commission was requested by IPGCL to true up the transit and moisture loss @ 3.8%
for coal based stations of IPGCL for FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11 and to approve the same for FY 2011-
12 for Rajghat Power House.
The table below provides the comparison of transit loss approved by the respective SERCs with that
provided in the respective state regulations:
Table 16: Comparison of State regulation with actual transit loss approved by SERC for FY12
State As per State
regulation
Approved
by SERC Remarks
Gujarat – Torrent
Power* 0.8% 1.4%
APTEL ordered GERC to decide the increase percentage of
allowable coal transit losses for Torrent Power Plants on
the basis of differentiation between washed and
unwashed coal
Bihar 0.8% 3.8% -
Punjab 2% 2%
No transit loss is allowed for PANAM Coal (Board’s Captive
Coal Mine), for other coal transit loss of 2% has been
allowed by the PSERC
Delhi – IPGCL 0.8% 0.8%
APTEL after examination of plea by IPGCL requested DERC
true up the transit and moisture loss @ 3.8% for coal based
stations of IPGCL for FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11 and to
approve the same for FY 2011-12.
* Appeal against GERC order for control period FY09 to FY11.
2.3.3. Impact of distance on the transit loss:
As stated in Hon’ble CERC in Statement of Objects and Reasons (Terms and Conditions of Tariff
Regulations2009):
“As regards norms for the state sector projects, the Commission expects the State Commissions to
specify suitable norms after due regard to the actual situation and distance involved in the
transportation of coal in respect of stations being regulated by them.”
Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) in Multi-Year Tariff Order and Truing up Order
for FY 2009-10, Annual Performance Review for FY 2010-11, Aggregate Revenue Requirement for
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
32
FY 2011-12 to FY 2015-16 and Determination of Tariff for FY 2011-12 for Torrent Power Limited
(TPL) under Case No. 1092 of 2011 dated 6th
September, 2011 stated that
“The Commission has allowed a transit Loss of 1.4%, as against the normative loss of 0.8%,
considering the long distance involved and consequential losses. The Commission feels there is
scope for considerable reduction in transit loss through vigorous and sustained efforts.”
Also,
“The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL), in its order dated 23rd March, 2010, opined that
some consideration deserves to be given for increased transit loss. However, the APTEL left it to
the State Commission, to decide increased percentage of allowable coal transit losses for TPL-G
stations. Consequently, GERC decided to approve transit loss of coal at 1.9% for the years FY 2009-
10 and 2010-11 in their review order dated 05.09.2011 in the Petition No. 966 of 2009.”
On the matter of distance and related transit loss, the state such as the power stations of BSEB
which receives coal from CIL (and subsidiaries) and ECL; the highest distance for the coal transit from
the mines of CIL and ECL located in the state of Jharkhand, west Bengal to the Barauni Thermal plant
of BSEB is around 300 km. However, the coal transit loss as approved by the Hon’ble BERC is 3.8%
keeping in mind the fact the uncontrollable nature of coal transit loss. Further, this allowance by
BERC is in line with the actual situation and is more than the transit loss norm specified by the BERC
in its tariff regulation.
On the same line if we look at the distances of the HPGCL plant from the coalfield from where HPGCL
is sourcing the coal, a higher transit loss cannot be avoided. The details of the coal suppliers and the
distance of coal block from of the HSPGCL plant is as given below:
Table 17: Source-wise distance of coal block from HPGCL plants
Sl.
Name of
the Power
Plant
Name of
the Coal
company
Head
quarter Location of the mines
Name of the
State
Average
distanceof HPGCL
plant from coal-
block (Km)
1. PTPS CCL Ranchi Bokaro, Karanpura,
Ramgarh and Giridih Jharkhand 1350
2. PTPS BCCL Dhanabad Jharia,Raniganj Jharkhand West
Bengal 1440
3. PTPS WCL Nagpur
(Maharashtra - Nagpur ,
Chandrapur, Yeotmal),
MP ( Betul,
Chhindawara)
Maharashtra,
Madhya
Pradesh
1125
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
33
Sl.
Name of
the Power
Plant
Name of
the Coal
company
Head
quarter Location of the mines
Name of the
State
Average
distanceof HPGCL
plant from coal-
block (Km)
4. PTPS,
RGTPS NCL Singruli Singruli
Madhya
Pradesh 1110
5. RGTPS MCL Sambalpur IB valley and Talcher Orissa 1535
It is also to be noted that, the dispatch and transportation of coal calls for inter-agency coordination
between Railways and Coal Companies. HPGCL does not have much control in this area. Railways do
not own the responsibilities for loss of coal in transit. The coal is transported in open wagons from
coalmines from a distance of more than 1000 km and there are high chances of pilferage of coal en-
route.
However, it is a fact that in-spite of having higher transit loss, HPGCL has no control over the inter-
agency involvement namely Indian railways and coal companies and HPGCL cannot claim any
compensation from coal company/ railway which add to the financial burden of the HPGCL. It is also
to be noted that neither railway nor other companies such as Insurance companies are ready to take
the responsibility of coal transit loss even after HPGCL is ready to pay premium to them. None of
these agencies are ready to accept to bring down the coal transit loss at the HERC specified norms.
HPGCL prays to the Hon’ble commission to suggest any third party agency which may take up the
responsibility of controlling transit loss at HERC’s specified norms; HPGCL will bear the charges for
appointment and services of such agency for handling coal transit losses.
Table 18: Year wise transit loss (%) of HPGCL plants
Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 (Upto
Sep’11)
PTPS 6.32 6.07 6.16 3.79 3.69 4.53 3.02 4.59 1.76 3.71 7.57 5.26
RGTPP - - - - - - - - - - - 6.96
DCRTPP - - - - - - - - - 3.19 7.17 9.09
Thus, keeping in view the fact that loss of coal in transit is beyond the control of HPGCL, HPGCL prays
the Hon’ble Commission to consider the impact of abovementioned issues in the coal transit and
kindly approve the coal transit losses for FY 2012-13 as proposed in the petition.
2.3.4. Coal agent
Coal agents/firms are appointed for the purposes of supervision of loading and weighment at the
loading points of coal rakes consigned to power stations in order to minimize short receipt of coal at
destination and also to render liaison services with Coal Companies, Railways and other agencies for
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
34
linkage materialization, quality assurance in connection with dispatch of coal. Because of the stiff
transit loss reduction target set by the Hon’ble Commission, even the agencies are not ready work
on behalf of HPGCL at the stipulated coal transit loss at a level of 0.8%. In this regard, HPGCL prays to
the Hon’ble commission to suggest any third party agency which may take up the responsibility of
controlling transit loss at HERC’s specified norms; HPGCL will bear the charges for appointment and
services of such agency for handling coal transit losses.
2.4. R&M of HPGCL power plant: PTPS Panipat
In order to improve the performance of all the 4X110 MW Units of PTPS-1, which are quite old and
of obsolete technology, the Renovation & Modernisation of these Units has been started with the
following objectives:
· To extend the life of the Units.
· To restore original rated capacity of the Units.
· To improve Plant availability/load factor.
· To enhance operational efficiency and safety
· To remove ash pollution and to meet up environmental standards.
In order to overcome problems/constraints adversely affecting the generation of Units-1 and 2 of
110 MW each commissioned in November 1979 and March 1980 under Stage-I, Renovation and
Modernisation (R & M) Schemes under Phase I and Phase II were approved by the Planning
Commission in March 1987 and November 1990 respectively. In pursuance to the policy of
Government of India to optimise power generation, a comprehensive R & M Scheme was adopted
by the erstwhile Board for rehabilitation of the existing four Units of 110 MW each at PTPS.
Competitive bids were invited (August 1995) and the contracts were awarded (23 May 1997) to ABB
Kraftwerke Berlin GmbH (now ABB Alstom Power), being the successful lowest bidder. ABB Alstom
Power (contractor) had guaranteed to enhance the capacity of the four Units (Unit-1 to 4) from 110
MW to 118 MW each with the objective to achieve a PLF of 85 per cent and improve the heat rate of
the Units from 3339 kCal/kWh to 2051 kCal/kWh.
Table 19: Shut-down details of PTPS Unit- 1&2
Power Station Period of Shut-down
PTPS Unit-1 Sep 2007 to Oct 2008
PTPS Unit-2 Jan 1999 to Mar 2003
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
35
The R&M scheme undertaken by the erstwhile Board at huge cost to improve the performance of
these Units did not produce the desired results. The refurbishment work taken up (May 1997) for
Unit-1 to 4 through a foreign contractor could not be completed as planned due to dispute with the
foreign contractor who had terminated the contract itself. The dispute could not be sorted out in
spite of intervention of the Government of India and CEA. As a result, substantial investment was
locked up in certain works put on hold besides huge loss of potential generation and payment of
commitment charges/guarantee fee on loans.
As per plan, the entire refurbishment work of all the four Units was to be completed by 21
November 2000. As per the schedule of refurbishment work, Unit-2 (first target Unit) was placed
under shutdown and handed over to the contractor M/s ABB Germany (now Alstom Power) on 21
January 1999 for refurbishment of the Unit which was to be completed by 20 May 1999.Meanwhile,
the contractor terminated (17 April 2000) the contract and abandoned the work unilaterally.
Figure 4:Impact of R&M on the PLF of PTPS Unit-2
Subsequently, the pending works of Unit-2 had to be completed from BHEL and HPGCL awarded the
contract for R&M of Unit-2 of PTPS having capacity of 110 MW to M/s BHEL vide L.O.I. dated
27/03/2002. It is also to be noted that M/s BHEL did not agree for any guaranteed parameter on
completion of pending R&M work of Unit-2. The main reason was that M/s BHEL was not having the
drawing of the work completed by M/s ABB (now Alstom Power). As per the contract Unit-2 was to
be commissioned within 8 months from the issue date of L.O.I. BHEL started the work on BTG in July
2002 and BHEL EDN, Bangalore and BHEL Bhopal started the work of C&I and electrical resp. in
October 2002 only.
Table 20: Impact of R&M on performance of PTPS Unit 2(110 MW)
Year PLF(%) Auxiliary
Consumption (%)
Generation
(MUs)
Station Heat
Rate (Kcal/kwh)
Oil Consumption
(ml/kwh)
19 17 18 20 17 26 29 30 32
1
72 59
71 77
67 74 71
35
82
0
20
40
60
80
100
PLF Trend for PTPS Unit-2
32
1
R&M
Phase
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
36
Year PLF(%) Auxiliary
Consumption (%)
Generation
(MUs)
Station Heat
Rate (Kcal/kwh)
Oil Consumption
(ml/kwh)
1995-96 26.47 14.87 255.80
38.35
1996-97 28.70 14.67 276.59
44.57
1997-98 30.04 12.56 289.45
38.12
1998-99 31.96 12.86 307.96 3916 32.10
1999-00 - - - - -
2000-01 - - - - -
2001-02 - - - - -
2002-03 0.87 0.00 8.42 4973 172.06
2003-04 72.38 11.05 699.38 3511 6.33
2004-05 59.34 12.13 571.82 3555 5.22
2005-06 70.65 11.75 680.81 3509 5.07
2006-07 77.37 11.59 745.50 3345 3.41
2007-08 67.39 12.13 651.13 3474 3.43
2008-09 73.61 11.48 709.27 3416 2.38
2009-10 71.26 11.75 686.70 3290 2.10
2010-11 35.05 13.59 337.79 3208 4.42
2011-12
(upto Sep’11) 82.07 11.21 396.49 3217 2.93
Note-1: The unit was under shutdown for R&M from Jan 1999 to March 2003
Note-2: ABB Alstom Power had guaranteed to enhance the capacity of the four Units (Units 1 to 4) from 110
MW to 118 MW each with the objective to achieve a PLF of 85 per cent and improve the heat rate of the Units
from 3339 K.Cal./kWh to 2051 K.Cal./kWh.
After carrying out the R&M work of the Unit-2, the testing and commissioning activities of 110 MW
Unit- 2 were started by BHEL in the first week of December 2002. The boiler lighted up on
05.02.2003 with HSD and the Unit was synchronized on 09.02.2003 at 12.19 hrs. However the same
was de-synchronized on the same day at 12.40 hrs to make available all other systems including
milling system for the sustainable operations of Unit. The coal firing was achieved on 21/22.03.2003
and Unit was synchronized with Grid. The maximum load of 100 MW was achieved on 26.03.2003 at
17:00 hrs and Unit-2 had recorded the generation of 8.415 MU in two days. Till 31 March 2003 four
(4) coal mills had been commissioned and taken into the service but the 5th
mill E was not
commissioned by BHEL. However Unit was boxed up on 28.03.2003 to check and plug the excessive
hydrogen leakage from generator. As a whole, the R&M had not resulted into achievement of
desired results for PTPS Unit-2 as shown in the Graph-3 above; also post R&M the Unit-2 of PTPS
could never achieve the guaranteed level of PLF of 85%. In terms of annual SHR of PTPS Unit-2which
was 3916 Kcal/kWh for FY 1998-99 before refurbishment and it was 3511 Kcal/kWh during FY 2003-
04 against the contracted provision of around 2051 Kcal/kWh.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
37
Table 21: Impact of R&M on performance of PTPS Unit-1 (100 MW to 117.8 MW)
Year PLF(%) Auxiliary
Consumption (%)
Generation
(MUs)
Station Heat Rate
(Kcal/kwh)
Oil Consumption
(ml/kwh)
1997-98 27.17 12.56 261.78 3984 34.72
1998-99 21.90 12.86 211.03 3984 39.73
1999-00 44.47 12.90 429.65 3693 13.36
2000-01 46.17 12.69 444.87 3682 11.97
2001-02 30.77 12.39 296.55 3847 11.68
2002-03 58.09 11.66 559.78 3741 6.26
2003-04 63.09 11.05 609.64 3497 4.50
2004-05 52.59 12.13 506.77 3554 5.13
2005-06 59.40 11.75 572.40 3508 4.97
2006-07 62.63 11.59 603.53 3342 3.11
2007-08 25.29 12.13 244.38 3480 4.14
2008-09 28.94 11.30 278.86 3480 9.42
2009-10 79.08 10.37 815.16 3047 1.95
2010-11 48.90 10.71 504.60 3112 4.08
2011-12
(upto Sep’11) 79.18 11.38 409.66 2886 2.04
* Unit has been uprated from 110 MW to 117.8 MW w.e.f. 07.04.2009.
Note: The unit was under shutdown for R&M from Sept. 2007 to Oct 2008
Note-2: ABB Alstom Power had guaranteed to enhance the capacity of the four Units (Units 1 to 4) from 110
MW to 118 MW each with the objective to achieve a PLF of 85 per cent and improve the heat rate of the Units
from 3339 K.Cal./kWh to 2051 K.Cal./kWh.
After that, R&M work of PTPS Unit-1 was also awarded to M/s BHEL in October 2006 which was
completed in October 2008.Under the R&M of Unit-1 of PTPS Panipat, refurbishment of Unit-1was
carried out through M/s BHEL during FY 2007-08 & 2008-09. In this case also, the performance of the
Unit after refurbishment has not been up to the mark and the desired improvements in performance
have not been achieved. The annual SHR of PTPS Unit-1 was 3342 Kcal/kWh for FY 2006-07 before
refurbishment and it was 2886 Kcal/kWh during FY 2011-12 (up to Sep’11) against the contracted
provision of around 2346 Kcal/kWh. Although the Unit-1 was commissioned in 04.11.2008 after
refurbishment, the PG Tests are yet to be completed. Similar to Unit-2, the performance of PTPS
Unit -1 posts R&M was also not sustainable as shown in the graph below:
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
38
Figure 5: Impact of R&M on the PLF of PTPS Unit-1
HPGCL till date have not got any Capital Expenditure approved for R&M of PTPS Unit 1-4, except for
Unit No. 1, for which they have already proposed better norms than other Units. Additionally, HPGCL
submits that R&M of PTPS Unit - 3 & 4 has been finalized with the World Bank funding and shall be
carried out in FY 2013-14. An analysis of the performance during FY 2011-12 (up to September 2011)
reveals that PLF of PTPS Units 1-4 is 68.65% as against 57.89% during FY 2008-09 and last seven
years best achieved of 72.45% (FY2003-04). PTPS Unit-1 attained a marginal improvement in PLF in
FY 2009-10 i.e. 79% consequent to the comprehensive R&M & up gradation to 117.8 MW got carried
out by BHEL.
Moreover, HPGCL has already submitted their business plan to the Hon’ble HERC on 8th
April 2009
vide Memo No. HPGC/ FIN/ Reg-317/535. Subsequently, after a series of queries and their responses
to the Hon’ble HERC, on 15th
Oct 2010, HPGCL has responded to the Hon’ble regarding all the
clarification w.r.t.the Business plan. However, the Hob’ble HERC has not yet approved the Business
plan, which is also impacting the performance of HPGCL plants.
Case of R&M of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bhatinda (GNDTP), PSPCL
PSPCL has carried out the R&M of GNDTP, Bhatinda during FY 06 and FY07. The details of the GNDTP
are as follows:
Table 22: Unit-wise GNDTP plant capacity and date of commissioning
Name Unit Capacity (MW) Date of Commissioning Date of Commissioning after R&M
GNDTP
U-1 110 22.9.74 April 2007
U-2 110 19.9.75 January 2006
U-3 110 29.3.78 -
U-4 110 31.1.79 -
27 22
44 46
31
58 63 53
59 63
25 29
79
49
79
0
20
40
60
80
100
PLF Trend for PTPS Unit-1
25 29
R&M
Phase
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
39
As seen from the above table it is clear that all Units of the GNDTP had completed more than their
designed life of 25 years. The PSPCL had undertaken the R&M of the all Units in a phased manner
with the following objectives as stated:
· To restore original rated capacity of the Units. (Uprating of capacity from 110MW to 120
MW for Units-3 & 4)
· To improve plant availability/load factor.
· To extend the life of the Units by 15 to 20 years.
· To enhance operational efficiency and safety
· To remove ash pollution and to meet up environmental standards of Pollution Control Board
· Energy Conservation.
Results of R&M work of Unit-1 and 2 at GNDTP Bhatinda:
Table 23: Operational parameters of GNDTP pre and post R&M
Parameter FY01 FY02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
PLF (%) 72.5 71.7 64.8 66.0 68.9 57.8 56.8 77.8 73.8 70.7 46.0
SHR (kCal/kWh) 2929 2870 2865 2801 2899 2923 2841 3047 3151 3035 2963
Specific Oil
Consumption(ml/kwh) 1.47 1.68 1.35 1.66 1.46 1.43 1.52 1.39 2.30 2.49 3.74
Specific Coal
Consumption
(Kg/kwh)
0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.74 0.74 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.74 1.34
As evident from the table, post R&M of Unit-1 and 2 of GNDTP’s there is no encouraging
improvement in the parameters such as PLF, SHR and specific fuel consumption of GNDTP, Bhatinda.
2.5. Loss of Generation due to Backing Down
During the past four years HPGCL is facing loss of generation due to backing down of Units on the
request of distribution licensee which has significant impact on the performance of its generating
stations. The table below presents the details of loss of generation in HPGCL plants.
Table 24: Loss of Generation due to Backing Down
Station Actual (in MUs)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12**
PTPS Unit (1-4) 5.800 26.944 1.277 123.962 95.095
PTPS (Unit-5) 0.711 7.197 16.376 102.661 45.222
PTPS (Unit-6) 0.565 14.334 23.074 59.679 39.902
PTPS (Unit-7) 0.882 8.836 1.017 6.647 3.268
PTPS (Unit-8) 0.690 24.351 1.177 110.035 45.181
PTPS (Unit 1-8) 8.648 81.662 42.921 402.984 228.668
DCRTPP Unit-1 - 1.114 1.246 66.112 35.991
DCRTPP Unit-2 - 3.292 0.872 90.395 33.510
RGTPP Unit-1 - - - 98.195
RGTPP Unit-2 - - - 25.872
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
40
Station Actual (in MUs)
Total HPGCL* 12.107 87.876 45.039 559.491 422.235
* includes loss of generation for FTPS; **Figures for 2011-12 are for 6 months ending September 2011
As can be seen in the table above, the HPGCL has already lost a total of 422.23 MUs in the six (6)
months of the current financial Year (FY2011-12). It is also to be noted that as per the decision made
in the meeting of “Steering Committee for Power Planning” under the Chairmanship of Financial
Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Power), Govt. of Haryana on 20th
September 2011, it was
decided that HPGCL would recover the fixed charge in the event of backing down in FY 2011-12,
including deemed generation credit for regulatory perspective. Accordingly, the Petitioner prays to
the Hon’ble Commission to kindly consider the impact of backing down/ deemed generation while
allowing the technical parameter of the plants or the earlier arrangement of recovery of the fixed
charge in the event of backing down as decided by Govt. of Haryana for FY 2011-12 may be allowed
to be continued for FY 2012-13 i.e. PLF to be worked out including generation loss on account of
backing down etc.
2.6. Force Majeure
A ‘Force Majeure’ means any event or circumstance or combination of events and circumstances
including those that wholly or partly prevents or unavoidably delays an Affected Party in the
performance of its obligations and could not have been avoided if the Affected Party had taken
reasonable care or complied with Prudent Utility Practices. The following shall be treated as Force
Majeure: acts of God, war, riots, embargoes, industry-wide strikes, the reduction in quantity of coal
supply to generating station, communal agitation, forced outages of power plant or any other causes
circumstances, or contingencies, whether of a similar or dissimilar nature to the foregoing, beyond
the control of the HPGCL, which cannot be reasonably forecast or prevented, thereby, hindering the
performance of the HPGCL plant.
There are few such cases in HPGCL wherein the plant has to go for long forced shut-down either for
carrying out major repairs works or because of the shortage of coal; which are beyond the control of
HPGCL and hence can be treated as force majeure condition.
Few such conditions are as discussed below:
Forced outage of 300 MW Unit-2 of DCRTPP Yamuna Nagar Plant: The 300 MW Unit-2 of DCRTPP
Yamunanagar was commissioned on June 24, 2008 and has been running on commercial operation
since then. The Unit achieved a PLF of 70% during FY 2008-09, 77% during FY 2009-10 and 62%
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
41
during FY 2010-11. As per contract, the provisional Taking over (PTO) of Unit-2 was done by HPGCL
on August 31, 2009, whereas the Final Taking Over (FTO) has not been achieved.
On September 25, 2011 while the machine was being re-taken after tripping of station transformer
on earth fault, the barring gear motor tripped on overload and the Turbine rotor came to stand still.
Efforts were made but the turbine could not be put on barring gear. After consultation with RInfra,
SEC China and various other experienced personnel, attempts were made to increase the speed of
the machine beyond 600 RPM but in all attempts, the machine got tripped at around the speed of
1300 RPM on high vibration at bearing No. 1. It was suspected by RInfra and SEC Engineers that the
cause of the problem might be either hogging or sagging of rotor or heat shock/ crack in blade/
blade mountings, due to ingress of water/ cold steam and the machine was put under shutdown for
in depth investigation. In the past too, Unit-2 of DCRTPP Yamunanagar was tripped because of the
following reasons:
· Unit-2 was running on partial load during Merch’10 to Oct’10 due to collapse of EPS hopper;
· EPS and other emergency works in Unit-2;
· Tripped due to turbine vibration high at bearing No.-7 (Fault in C&I control cable);
The reasons of such a frequent tripping and shut-down of DCRTPP, Yamunanagar could be many
which may require further investigation. However, on the commercial front HPGCL would incur huge
loss due to such uncontrollable events. Such events results into lower availability of the plant. Taking
such a unique case of DCRTPP Yamuna Nagar, HPGCL prays to the commission to consider the force
majeure condition which are beyond the control of HPGCL such as current scenario of long shut
downs of Unit-2 of DCRTPP, Yamunanagar and allow the full recovery of fixed cost for rectification of
the chronic problems in the plant. Further HPGCL prays to the Hon’ble HERC to accordingly review
and revise the plant load factor of DCRTPP, Yamuna Nagar for the FT 2011-12.
Loss of Generation due to coal shortage: Apart from this HPGCL is also facing acute shortage of coal
for RGTTP, Hisar plant where there is no FSA and HPGCL is losing revenue on account of lower
generation because of coal shortage. At RGTPP, Hisar the percentage of coal receipt was 57.41%
during FY 2010-11 and 78.70% during FY 2011-12 till Sep’11. Over and above RGTPP, Hisar is
receiving significant quantum of coal from MCL area which is of poor quality and has about 40-42
per cent ash content. HPGCL prays to the Hon’ble Commission to consider the current status of fuel
supply and allow the full recovery of fixed cost.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
42
On the similar case of Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd. Versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory
Commission the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity vide Appeal No. 81 of 2007 has given the following
judgment on 10th
January, 2008:
“Taking the case of RPH station the Commission has considered the vintage and current status of
plant operation including long shut downs of Unit nos. 1 and 2 and has relaxed the target availability
for the recovery of fixed charges of RPH to 60% combined for FY 2005-06 and 2006-07 as against
70%. It is to be noted that practically one Unit of the station was not available for operation because
of major repairs for more than 8 months out of 24 months in FY 2005-06 and 2006-07. Viewing it
year-wise, the station was having one Unit with chronic problem and the second Unit was available
for only 4 months after the repairs in FY 2005-06. Whereas in FY 2006-07 one Unit was available after
repairs for the entire year and the second Unit was only available for nearly 7 months after repairs.
Expected availability of RPH in FY 2005-06 is widely different from that achievable in FY 2006-07 and
combining them and fixing relaxed normative target availability of 60% will not represent true
picture. It will be reasonable to fix target availability separately for each year. We, therefore,
direct the Commission to fix target availability of RPH for recovery of fixed cost separately for each
year while taking into account the factors for relaxation. No incentive, however, is allowed if the
PLF does not exceed target PLF of 70%.”
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
43
3. Submission
3.1. Brief of Submissions
The Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (HPGCL or Petitioner) is submitting this Tariff
Petition for FY 2012-13. This current petition is based on the technical and financial parameters
approved as per Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff)
Regulations, 2009 and the principles adopted by Hon’ble HERC in Tariff Orders for previous years
and Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Generation Tariff)
Regulations 2008.
The Petitioner is filing the petition without prejudice to its right to initiate appropriate legal
proceedings and seek legal remedies thereto, on the application submitted before the Hon’ble
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) seeking review of technical and financial parameters
approved by the Hon’ble Commission in Tariff Orders.
In the aforesaid petitions, the Petitioner has raised the following issues:
a. Review and relaxation of technical norms i.e. Station Heat Rate, PLF, Auxiliary Consumption,
Specific oil consumption due to reasons beyond the control of the Petitioner;
b. Review & relaxation in norms related to coal transit losses for the generating stations of the
Petitioner;
c. Quality and quantity of coal constraints and its impact on the technical performance of the
generating stations;
d. Approval of O&M expenses and Return on equity as proposed by the Petitioner;
e. Issues related with Two-part Tariff and recovery of fixed cost in the event of backing down of
generating stations;
In this Petition, the Petitioner has considered the submissions based on the Central Electricity
Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009. However, the Petitioner
has reiterated the submissions made in the previous petitions and the realistic/ achievable norms at
appropriate instances for ease of reference. In certain cases, where the Petitioner is of the view that
the said norms and principles are not achievable, the Petitioner has submitted based on the actual
performance of the generating stations for the past three years. The Petitioner requests the Hon’ble
Commission to consider the same while determination of the tariff for the respective stations.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
44
HPGCL has filed the requisite information in this application along with the Audited Annual Accounts
for FY 2010-11 and Cost Accounting record along with Cost Audit report for FY 2009-10.
The Petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed for relief and relating to Tariff
determination for the FY 2012-13 as detailed in the petition. Further, it is submitted that the tariff be
made applicable with effect from April 1, 2012.
Proposed Generation tariff for FY 2012-13
A summary of the projected generation tariff for HPGCL during the year FY 2012-13 is provided
below:
Table 25: Summary of projected generation tariff for HPGCL for FY2012-13 (In Rs. Crore)
Total Proposed Generation Tariff (FY2012-13)
Fuel Cost 5,514.56
Total Variable Cost 5,514.56
Proposed Depreciation 469.69
Interest & Finance Charges 634.97
Interest on Working Capital 362.17
Return on Equity 425.52
O&M Cost 670.73
Total Fixed Cost 2563.08
Net Units Generated (MUs) 21,022.3
Variable cost per Unit (Rs/kWh) 2.62
Fixed cost per Unit (Rs/kWh) 1.22
Total Tariff per Unit (Rs/kWh) 3.84
The summary of total cost for each generating station of HPGCL for FY2012-13 is summarized in
tables below:
Table 26: Plant wise breakup of total cost; PTPS for FY 2012-13 (In Rs. Crore)
Station PTPS
(Unit1-4)
PTPS
(Unit-5)
PTPS
(Unit-6)
PTPS
(Unit-7)
PTPS
(Unit-8)
PTPS
(Unit 1-8)
Fuel Cost 744.07 432.40 435.23 454.11 453.93 2,519.69
Proposed Depreciation 28.91 12.20 50.89 44.34 44.35 180.69
Interest & Finance Charges 14.74 2.82 13.07 27.67 27.67 85.96
Interest on Working Capital 50.74 254.78 273.55 293.78 293.69 1,623.16
Return on Equity 15.64 9.12 29.04 40.23 40.23 134.26
O&M Cost 172.50 45.17 45.17 53.78 53.78 370.40
Total Cost of Generation 1,025.65 527.19 600.75 690.74 608.08 3,452.41
MUs Generated 2,075.75 1,407.45 1,414.33 1,693.97 1,693.97 8,285.46
Cost per Unit (Rs./kWh) 4.95 3.75 4.25 3.83 3.83 4.17
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
45
Table 27: Plant wise breakup of total cost; DCRTPP and RGTPP for FY 2012-13 (In Rs. Crore)
Station DCRTPP
Unit-1
DCRTPP
Unit-2
DCRTPP
Unit 1 –2
RGTPP
Unit -1
RGTPP
Unit-2
RGTPP
Unit 1-2
Fuel Cost 486.88 486.88 973.77 1,010.53 1,010.53 2,021.06
Proposed Depreciation 51.10 51.10 102.21 88.68 88.68 177.36
Interest & Finance Charges 86.83 86.83 173.66 186.04 186.04 372.09
Interest on Working Capital 50.74 25.48 27.36 30.39 28.36 162.32
Return on Equity 330.60 330.60 661.20 659.23 659.23 1,318.46
O&M Cost 56.73 56.73 113.46 82.92 82.92 165.84
Total Cost of Generation 1,026.60 527.19 600.75 690.74 608.08 3,453.35
MUs Generated 2,032.76 2,032.76 4,065.52 4,199.54 4,199.54 8,399.09
Cost per Unit (Rs./kWh) 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.64 3.64 3.64
Table 28: Plant wise breakup of total cost: Hydro Plants of HPGCL for FY 2012-13 (In Rs. Crore)
Station WYC &Karkoi Total HPGCL
Fuel Cost - 5,514.52
Proposed Depreciation 9.43 469.69
Interest & Finance Charges 3.26 634.97
Interest on Working Capital 1.48 361.77
Return on Equity 5.48 425.52
O&M Cost 21.04 670.73
Total Cost of Generation 40.69 8,077.60
MUs Generated 272.26 21,022.32
Cost per Unit (Rs./kWh) 1.51 3.84
The Petitioner humbly prays to the Commission to approve the proposed Generation tariff as
proposed and permit the Petitioner to recover the actual cost of generation as also envisaged in the
National Tariff Policy Section 5.3 (f) which states that
“The norms should be efficient, relatable to past performance, capable of achievement and
progressively reflecting increased efficiencies and may also take into consideration the latest
technological advancements, fuel, vintage of equipment, nature of operations, level of service to be
provided to consumers etc.....”
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
46
3.2. Prayer
In view of the above, the petitioner respectfully prays that Hon’ble Commission may kindly:-
a) Admit this Petition;
b) Condone delay in submission of the petition;
c) consider deemed generation for computation of technical parameters of HPGCL generating
station;
d) Permit HPGCL the right to sell the power to third party outside state in event of payment
default by the distribution licensee of Haryana and also to recover the fixed charge of the
power sold outside the state instead of Haryana discoms;
e) Approve the two part tariff for FY 2012-13 to the extent claimed by HPGCL in accordance
with the submissions and rationale given in the Petition;
f) Allow coal import beyond 10% as mandated by Govt. of India and also to procure coal
through e-auction process as well as from private sources to meet the coal shortage in
HPGCL.
g) Permit recovery of fixed charges for the Units which are under forced shut-down because of
force majeure conditions and in case of backing down of the plant;
h) Pass such orders as Hon’ble HERC may deem fit and proper and necessary in the facts and
circumstances of the case, to grant relief in the operational norms related to Plant Load
factor, Station Heat Rate, Auxiliary Consumption, Specific oil consumption for PTPS Unit-1 to
4as they are more than 25 years old;
i) Approve the coal transit losses and moisture loss for FY 2012-13 as proposed in the petition
in line with APTEL order dated 07.04.2011 on Appeal No. 26 of 2008, CERC (Terms and
Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 - Statement of Objects and Reasons & Tariff order
passed by Hon’ble BERC;
j) Approve all pending petitions filed by HPGCL in the past such as business plan etc;
k) Approve the other consideration expressed by the petitioner in the current petition;
l) Condone any inadvertent omissions / errors / short comings and permit the applicant to add
/ change /modify / alter this filing and make further submissions as may be required at later
stages;
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
47
4. Projections of the Technical Parameters
In this section, HPGCL has provided the actual performance of the stations for the past years
including first six months of the FY 2011-12 (Current year) and projections for the FY 2012-13 (the
ensuing year). The station wise details and rationale for projections for FY 2012-13 is provided in the
following sub-sections.
4.1. Plant Load Factor
The table given below outlines the actual PLF achieved by HPGCL’s generating stations in the past
years.
Table 29: Actual Plant Load Factor achieved by HPGCL from FY 2004-05 onwards
Station
Actual (in %)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12
(Upto
Sep’11)
PTPS Unit-1 52.59 59.40 62.63 25.29 28.94 70.08 48.90 79.18
PTPS Unit-2 59.34 70.65 77.37 67.39 73.61 71.26 35.05 82.07
PTPS Unit-3 69.95 21.42 49.06 77.57 68.46 50.02 69.11 57.54
PTPS Unit-4 64.86 79.61 77.3 67.4 60.56 72.39 60.75 55.05
PTPS Unit-5 79.76 79.73 91.55 96.23 94.27 79.06 83.91 79.62
PTPSUnit-6 80.51 91.77 91.4 93.18 91.64 97.49 88.86 86.60
PTPS Unit-7 77.17 42.08 90.32 98.91 85.35 98.4 92.63 92.54
PTPS Unit-8 - 85.32 91.24 86.48 94.41 96.93 90.08 90.62
PTPS (Unit 1-8) 71.14 68.53 83.17 82.55 80.48 85.19 77.39 81.47
DCRTPP Unit-1 - - - 68.66 85.73 85.08 94.53
DCRTPP Unit-2 - - - 69.53 76.97 62.6 61.83
DCRTPP(Unit 1-2) - - - 69.05 81.35 73.85 78.18
RGTPP Unit-1 - - - - - - 52.06
RGTPP Unit-2 - - - - - - 43.55
RGTPP (Unit 1-2) - - - - - - 47.80
WYC & Karkoi 67.00 78.78 78.94 75.01 82.93 76.28 ___
HPGCL 67.00 78.78 78.94 75.01 82.93 76.28 68.09
As can be seen, the overall PLF performance of HPGCL has improved from 67% in FY 2005-06 to
nearly 83% in FY 2009-10. However, during FY 2010-11 the PLF has declined due to poor
performance of PTPS Unit 1-4 and DCRTPP Unit-2. The PLF during the first 6 months ending
September of FY 2011-12 for HPGCL as a whole has also declined considerably, due to the lower PLF
of RGTPP Unit 1-2 on account of stabilization issues and inadequacy of coal.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
48
4.1.1. Unit-wise details PLF for PTPS Unit 1-4:
Table 30: Actual Plant Load Factor for PTPS Unit I-IV
Power Station
Actual (in %)
FY -05 FY -06 FY -07 FY - 08 FY -09 FY -10 FY -11
FY-12
(upto
Sep’11)
FY-13
(proposed
)
PTPS Unit-1 52.59 59.40 62.63 25.29 28.94 70.08 48.90 79.18 52.59
PTPS Unit-2 59.34 70.65 77.37 67.39 73.61 71.26 35.05 82.07 59.34
PTPS Unit-3 69.95 21.42 49.06 77.57 68.46 50.02 69.11 57.54 69.95
PTPS Unit-4 64.86 79.61 77.3 67.4 60.56 72.39 60.75 55.05 64.86
PTPS Unit (1-4) 61.69 57.77 66.59 59.41 57.89 68.38 53.37 68.65 59.88
The PTPS Unit-1 to 4 has achieved a consistently low PLF during the last 6 years due to the vintage of
the Plant. During FY2008-09, R&M works were completed for Unit-1, owing to which the overall
performance witnessed a significant improvement in the following year and the plant achieved a PLF
of 68%. The PLF declined in year 2010-11 due to the forced outages of Unit-1 from 01.03.2010 to
23.08.2010 due to damage of all the bearings of Turbine & Generators & Unit-4 from 20.04.2010 to
27.05.2010 due to high vibrations in Generator bearing. Also the annual overhauling of Unit-2 which
commenced on 25.10.10 for 45 days has been extended due to unforeseen fault in ABB modified
turbine.
The poor performance of Unit-1 to 4 can be attributed to the lack of R&M activity, as the R&M of
only Unit I has been completed so far and the Petitioner has not claimed R&M capital expenditure
for any other Units in any Tariff Petition. The R&M for Unit 1-4 was awarded to M/S ABB Germany,
now Alstom Power, in the year 1997. The firm had left the work in year 2000 for which the matter is
still under arbitration. Subsequently, the work was awarded to BHEL in year 2002, which was merely
rehabilitation work and BHEL did not agree for any guarantee towards the improved technical
performance of the Plant. In the above background, the Petitioner has completed the R&M of only
Unit-1 during the year 2008-09, whereas, the R&M of Unit-2 still remains pending. The R&M for
Unit-3 and Unit-4 are planned in the year 2013-14, through financial assistance from the World Bank
for which the Business Plan shall be submitted subsequently.
Therefore, the Petitioner has proposed a PLF of 59.88% for Unit-1 to 4 based on the average of
actual PLF achieved during the preceding three complete years of operations. The Petitioner prays
the Hon’ble Commission to consider the above-mentioned difficulties in the achieving the norms.
The petitioner would also like to present a similar case where the Jharkhand Electricity regulatory
Commission (JERC) has passed an order with relaxation of norms due to the aging effect for the
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
49
vintage Patratu Thermal Power Station (PTPS) for FY 10-11. Relevant excerpt from the tariff order
passed by Jharkhand ERC for PTPS are as follow:
4.1.2. PTPS Unit-5 to 8
Table 31: Actual Plant Load Factor for PTPS Unit-5 to 8
Power Station
Actual PLF (%)
FY - 05 FY - 06 FY - 07 FY - 08 FY - 09 FY - 10 FY - 11
FY-12
(upto
Sep’11)
2012-13
(Propos
ed)
PTPS Unit-5 79.76 79.73 91.55 96.23 94.27 79.06 83.91 79.62 85.00
PTPS Unit-6 80.51 91.77 91.4 93.18 91.64 97.49 88.86 86.60 85.00
PTPS Unit-7 77.17 42.08 90.32 98.91 85.35 98.4 92.63 92.54 85.00
PTPS Unit-8 - 85.32 91.24 86.48 94.41 96.93 90.08 90.62 85.00
PTPS Unit (5-8) 91.84 73.70 91.09 93.61 91.29 93.38 89.09 87.71 85.00
The Unit-5 to 8 have performed satisfactorily in the past years, except for FY 2010-11. Therefore, the
Petitioner envisages the normative PLF of 85% as achievable and prays to the Hon’ble Commission
for allowance.
4.1.3. DCRTPP Unit-1&2
Table 32: Actual Plant Load factor for DCRTPP Unit-1&2
Power Station
Actual PLF (%)
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2011-
12(upto
Sep’11)
2012-13
(Projected)
DCRTPP Unit-1 68.66 85.73 85.08 94.53 85.00
DCRTPP Unit-2 69.53 76.97 62.6 61.83 85.00
DCRTPP (Unit-1&2) 69.05 81.35 73.85 78.18 85.00
The 300 MW Unit-2 of DCRTPP Yamuna Nagar was commissioned on June 24, 2008 and has been
running on commercial operation since then. The Unit achieved a PLF of 70% during 2008-09, 77%
during 2009-10 and 62% during 2010-11. As per contract, the provisional Taking over (PTO) of Unit-2
was done by HPGCL on August 31, 2009, and Final Taking Over (FTO) has not been achieved.
“In view of the analysis and directions given in Hon’ble APTEL’s Order dated 8.5.2008 and also
considering that many Units of PTPS are more than 35-40 years old and it may not be feasible for
the licensee to achieve the operational targets, the Commission has now decided to relax the
norms of the operational parameters vis-à-vis the target set in the previous Tariff Orders. The
Commission sets the timelines for the improvement of operational parameters as per the revised
norms for attaining PLF of 45% and SHR of 2950 Kcal/Kwh by the end of FY 2013-14.”
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
50
On September 25 2011, while the machine was being re-taken after tripping of station transformer
on earth fault, the barring gear motor tripped on overload and the Turbine rotor came to stand still.
Efforts were made but the turbine could not be put on barring gear. After consultation with Reliance
Infra, SEC China and various other experienced personnel, attempts were made to increase the
speed of the machine beyond 600 RPM but in all attempts, the machine got tripped at around the
speed of 1300 RPM on high vibration at bearing No. 1. It was suspected by Reliance Infra and SEC
Engineers that the cause of the problem might be either hogging or sagging of rotor or heat shock/
crack in blade/ blade mountings, due to ingress of water/ cold steam and the machine was put under
shutdown for in depth investigation. It is expected that the Unit-2 will be put under operations in the
FY 2012-13. The Petitioner envisages the normative PLF of 85% as achievable and prays to the
Hon’ble Commission for allowing the same subject to adjustment at the end of year based on the
actuals.
4.1.4. RGTPP Unit-1&2
Table 33: Actual Plant Load factor for RGTPP Unit-1&2
Power Station Actual (in %)
2011-12(Upto Sep’11) 2012-13 (Projected)
RGTPP Unit-1 52.06 85.00
RGTPP Unit-2 43.55 85.00
RGTPP (Unit-1&2) 47.80 85.00
The proposed PLF for RGTPP, Hisar is as shown above. Although the actual PLF till Sep’11 is 47.8%,
the petitioner has proposed a PLF of 85% assuming that the operation would be stabilized and the
constraints of coal quality and quantity will be removed. However the projection as above for
FY2012-13 is subject to adjustment at the end of the year based on the actuals. The factors that are
affecting the PLF of RGTPP, Hisar which are beyond the control of HPGCL are:
· Increase in the ash content of coal leading to inability of the coal mills to run on full load,
increase in the turbidity of cooling water leading to frequent maintenance outages of condenser
tubes for cleaning, inadequate and intermittent coal supply affecting the loading of the Units
etc;
· Inadequacy of coal for the RGTPP Unit-1&2;
Considering the above submission, the Petitioner has projected the PLF for PTPS Unit-1 to4 based on
the actual achievable PLF, a normative PLF of 85% for the remaining Units of HPGCL.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
51
The table below summarizes the achievable PLF as envisaged by the Petitioner subject to adjustment
at the end of year based on the actuals.
Table 34: Proposed PLF of all plants of HPGCL
Station Proposed PLF (in %)
2012-13
PTPS Unit-1 to 4) 59.88%
PTPS (Unit-5) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-6) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-7) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-8) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-1 to 8)
DCRTPP Unit-1 85.00%
DCRTPP Unit-2 85.00%
Total DCRTPP Unit-1&.2
RGTPP Unit-1 85.00%
RGTPP Unit-2 85.00%
Total RGTPP Unit 1-2 85.00%
WYC & Karkoi
Total HPGCL 81.45%
4.2. Plant Availability Factor (PAF)
In case the intrastate ABT is introduced in the state of Haryana, the values of Plant Load factor (PLF)
would be replaced by Plant Availability Factor (PAF) as shown in the table subject to adjustment at
the end of each year based on the actuals. Plant availability factor shown for the HPGCL Power
Plants have been proposed keeping in view the impediments related to coal supply faced by HPGCL
for its different power plants. The lower value of Plant Availability Factor for PTPS Unit-1 to 4 is
because of the fact that these Units are very old and has been frequently closed down on account of
R&M activity. Similarly for RGTPP and DCRTPP the availability has been proposed based on
availability of coal.
Table 35: Plant Availability Factor for FY 2012-13
Station Proposed PAF (in %)
2012-13
PTPS Unit (1 to 4) 59.88%
PTPS (Unit-5) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-6) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-7) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-8) 85.00%
PTPS (Unit-1 to 8)
DCRTPP Unit-1 85.00%
DCRTPP Unit-2 85.00%
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
52
Station Proposed PAF (in %)
Total DCRTPP Unit-1&2
RGTPP Unit-1 85.00%
RGP Unit-2 85.00%
Total RGTPP Unit 1 – 2 85.00%
Total HPGCL 81.45%
The availability proposed by HPGCL is on the best effort basis, subject to supply of required quantity
of coal and other technical constraint such as aging of plants. In this regard the plant availability
factor of the plants should be allowed to revisit at the end of the year based on the actuals.
4.3. Station Heat Rate
The actual Station Heat Rate attained by the generating stations of HPGCL during past years has
been indicated in the table below.
Table 36: Actual Station Heat rate (in kcal/kwh) achieved from FY 2004-05
Station
Actual (in %)
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
2011-12
(Upto
Sep’11)
PTPS Unit-1 to 4) 3567 3665 3341 3470 3425 3225 3349 3230
PTPS (Unit-5 to 8) 2858 2703 2620 2571 2574 2561 2679 2740
DCRTPP(Unit-1&2) - - - - 2450 2387 2479 2406
RGTPP (Unit-1&2) - - - - - - - 2846
HPGCL 3287 3074 2894 2916 2762 2684 2728 2772
Station Heat Rate for generating stations varies from Unit to Unit depending upon their age, size,
technology, no. of starts/stops, quality of coal etc. The older the Unit becomes, its efficiency goes
down, and it becomes prone to run at higher heat rate. This is primarily on account of the
deterioration of efficiency of a Unit on account of ageing and more number of starts and stops.
In addition, the quality of coal being fed continuously is a prime factor contributing to the
determination of heat rate of a Unit.
In this respect, it is requested that HERC may be requested to consider the provisions given in the
Section 5.3 (f) and 5.3 (i) 2 of the National Tariff Policy dated 6th January, 2006.
Section 5.3 (f) of National Tariff Policy reads as follows:
· The norms should be efficient, relatable to past performance, capable of achievement and
progressively reflecting increased efficiencies and may also take into consideration the latest
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
53
technological advancements, fuel, vintage of equipment, nature of operations, level of
service to be provided to consumers etc.....
· The Central Commission would, in consultation with the Central Electricity Authority, notify
operating norms from time to time for generation and transmission. The SERC would adopt
these norms. In cases where operations have been much below the norms for many
previous years, the SERCs may fix relaxed norms suitably and draw a transition path over the
time for achieving the norms notified by the Central Commission.
Section 5.3 (h) 2 of the National Tariff Policy states:
· In cases where operations have been much below the norms for many previous years the
initial starting point in determining the revenue requirement and the improvement
trajectories should be recognized at “relaxed” levels and not the “desired” levels. Suitable
benchmarking studies may be conducted to establish the “desired” performance standards.
Separate studies may be required for each utility to assess the capital expenditure necessary
to meet the minimum service standards
For the old Units like PTPS Unit-1 to 4, the R & M is being planned but the same will take some time
as HPGCL is evaluating the alternatives for funding the schemes. Also, under the provisions of the
Electricity Act, 2003, HPGCL has a mandate to operate on commercial principles only. Therefore, the
need of commercial independence of HPGCL should be factored while approving the SHR. HPGCL has
not claimed any R&M for the old Units except Unit-1 of PTPS, Panipat. For Unit-3&4 the
refurbishment is proposed in FY 2013-14. After the implementation of the proposed R&M HPGCL
expects improvement in the SHR of the Units.
As suggested in the aforementioned paragraphs, HPGCL is going very cautiously in the
implementation of the schemes by ensuring optimization of investments vis-à-vis the commensurate
benefits from schemes. Therefore, in the absence of any R&M scheme being planned for 2012-13.,
HPGCL has adopted the old methodology of suggesting the SHR by considering a deterioration factor
of 1.5% on the test results. Considering the above said reasons the petitioner has arrived at the
following station heat rate for the all Units of the PTPS as follows:
Table 37: Station Heat Rate (SHR) (Kcal/kwh)
Particulars
Station Heat Rate (SHR) (Kcal/Kwh)
2009-10
FY -11 (1.5%
increase for
deterioration)
FY -12 (1.5%
increase for
deterioration)
2012-13 (1.5%
increase for
deterioration)
Last Three
Years
Average
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
54
Particulars
Station Heat Rate (SHR) (Kcal/Kwh)
As per Energy Audit
Report dated Dec.2010
Unit-1, PTPS, Panipat
- 2,937.24 2,981.30 3,026.02 3213
As per Energy Audit
Report dated April 2010
Unit-2, PTPS, Panipat
3,308.53 3,358.16 3,408.53 3,459.66 3305
As per Energy Audit
Report dated April 2010
Unit-3, PTPS, Panipat
3,274.01 3,323.12 3,372.97 3,423.56 3366
As per Energy Audit
Report dated April 2010
Unit-4, PTPS, Panipat
3,287.15 3,336.46 3,386.50 3,437.30 3439
Unit-1 to 4
3,336.63 3333.0
As per Energy Audit
Report dated April 2010
Unit-5, PTPS, Panipat
2,806.97 2,849.07 2,891.81 2,935.19 2740
As per Energy Audit
Report dated April 2010
Unit-6, PTPS, Panipat
2,825.53 2,867.91 2,910.93 2,954.60 2703
Unit-7, PTPS, Panipat - - - - 2585.86
Unit-8, PTPS, Panipat - - - - 2584.83
Though the Station heat rate arrived for PTPS are higher than the approved in Tariff Order for the FY
2011-12, the petitioner requests the Hon’ble Commission to relax the norms for these PTPS plants
owing to the difficulty abovementioned.
The petitioner would also like to present a similar case where the Tamil Nadu Electricity regulatory
Commission (TNERC) and Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) has passed an
order with relaxation of norms for the station heat rate.
As per Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2008;
“The Commission may vary the normative heat rate from those indicated in these regulations on a
case-to-case basis based on the levels of O&M and Life Extension (LE) that the station has been
subjected to in the recent past or adopt the norms as specified by the CERC from time to time.”
Excerpt of TNERC order giving due consideration to SHR relaxation for poor coal quality
Applicant’s (TNEB) appeal:
· As per tariff regulations, SHR norms for TTPS & NCTPS were required to be 2453 kcal/kWh
and 2393 kCal/kWh respectively.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
55
· TNEB sought relaxation of station heat rate norms for TTPS and NCTPS in their letter dated
23-7-2010.
· TNEB prayed for relaxation of heat rate norm to 2560 kcal / kWh for Units I, II & III and 2600
kcal / kWh for Units IV & V for TTPS and 2500 kcal / kWh for NCTPS
TNERC order: (Relevant excerpt)
· The details furnished by TNEB for these power stations have been examined and it is
observed that they have exceeded the normative heat rate in many power stations.
· The Central Electricity Authority commissioned a consultant by name Evonic Energy Services
India Pvt Ltd in June 2008 to evaluate the performance of TTPS and in August 2008 to
evaluate the performance of NCTPS. The consultant recorded the heat rate as 2575.31 kcal /
kWh for NCTPS and 2826 kcal / kWh for TTPS.
· The TNEB has prayed for relaxation of heat rate norm to 2560 kcal / kWh for Units I, II & III
and 2600 kcal / kWh for Units IV & V for TTPS and 2500 kcal / kWh for NCTPS.
· Considering that the Commission has prescribed a norm of 2500 kcal / kWh for new plants,
the Commission approves relaxation of norms for TTPS and NCTPS upto 2500 kcal / kWh in
terms of Clause 90 of the Tariff Regulations 2005 for the year 2010-11
· The Commission allows the following station heat rate in relaxation of the Regulation 90 of
TNERC Tariff Regulations.
o TTPS: 2500kCal/kwh
o NCTPS: 2466 kCal/kWh
In another case SHR for plants in Uttar Pradesh have been given relaxation in norms by UPERC in
tariff order 2008-09.
Excerpt from UPERC order allowing higher SHR to meet increased fuel expenses
· “In order dt.13.10.08, the Commission also observed that it was not averse to consider
difficulty, if any, being experienced by the petitioner in achieving the operational norms at
the time of determination of tariff has been able to achieve for this station during the period
in question.”
· The Commission is aware of increased quantity of fuel input due to higher Station Heat Rate
with respect to the bench mark values mentioned in the Regulation. Therefore the
Commission in order to compensate UPRVUNL for its losses, due to hard cost on enhanced
quantity of fuel, thinks it is appropriate to allow the Station Heat Rate for Obra-A, Obra-B,
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
56
Harduaganj and Panki as proposed by the Petitioner for FY 2008-09 instead of the values
mentioned in the Regulations, 2004 and its amendment on the grounds of non-payment by
the Respondents but without sharing so that the Petitioner does not suffer losses on fuel
purchase.
· In view of the above decision, Station Heat Rate as approved by the UPERC is as below:
Table 38: Station Heat Rate approved by the UPERC at relaxed norms
Name of the thermal
Power Plant
SHR (kcal/kWh) as per
Regulation
SHR (kcal/kWh) as per the
Petition
SHR (kcal/kWh) as Approved
by the Commission
Obra A 2850 3000 3000
Obra B 2700 2900 2900
Panki 2950 3100 3100
Harduaganj 3300 3450 3450
Another important case to be referred in this context is the case of MSPGCL wherein the operating
norms were relaxed in favour of the generating company after truing up process. MERC vide its MYT
tariff order dated 25th April 2007 approved the following SHR for MSPGCL plants. The relevant
extract reads as under:
Table 39: Approved Station Heat Rate by MERC
Name of the
Plant
Approved
FY05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 09-10
Koradi 2996 2907 2786 2792 2797
Khaparkheda 2725 2644 2556 2561 2566
Chandrapur 2502 2480 2545 2551 2556
Nasik 2663 2584 2648 2653 2642
Bhusawal 2735 2561 2649 2654 2652
Parli 2649 2573 2652 2657 2660
Paras 3200 3105 3105 - -
MSGPCL filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the above said highlighting various
issues including operating norms and in particular SHR norms for its stations. The Hon’ble Appellate
directed MERC to carry out an independent study to reasonable assess the achievable heat rate of
the plants owned by MSPGCL and to suggest measures to improve the heat rates over a period of
time. ATE directed MERC to determine the heat rate based on the outcome of the study and align its
Regulations by prescribing achievable norms and not merely ideal norms. Relevant extract of the
truing up order is as below:
“As regards norms for performance parameters, viz., transit loss of coal, station heat rate, auxiliary
consumption, and specific oil consumption of MSPGCL’s generating stations, Appellate Tribunal for
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
57
Electricity (ATE) directed the Commission to undertake an independent study, either through MSPGCL
or on its own, and reset the operating parameters and align its Regulations by prescribing achievable
norms and not merely ideal norms after taking into consideration the results of such independent
study.”
MERC has now allowed the actual SHR achieved by MSPGCL stations for FY 05-06, 06-07 & 07-08 and
has also relaxed the SHR norms for 08-09 and 09-10 based on the results of the study carried out by
the independent agency.
Relevant extracts of the truing up order are as under:
“The Commission noted that MSPGCL has claimed truing up of fuel expenses for FY 2005-06, FY 2006-
07 and FY 2007-08 based on actual fuel expenses incurred by MSPGCL, and if CPRI suggested heat
rates for FY 2005-06, FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 are considered, it will result in allowing fuel
expenses in excess of actual fuel expenses, being passed through to the consumers. Hence, for truing
up of fuel expenses for FY 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08, the Commission has considered the actual fuel
expenses as per audited accounts and hence, the actual performance parameters achieved by
MSPGCL.”. Thus the final approved SHR for FY 05-06, 06-07 and 07-08 for MSPGCL stations are as
below:
Table 40: Approved Station Heat Rate by the MERC in case of MSPGCL
Heat Rate (kCal/kWh)
FY05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08
Approved
earlier by
MERC
Approved after
truing up
Approved
earlier by
MERC
Approved
after truing
up
Approved
earlier by
MERC
Approved
after truing
up
Koradi 2996 2977 2907 2997 2786 3249
Khaparkheda 2725 2597 2644 2612 2556 2755
Chandrapur 2502 2611 2480 2600 2545 2599
Nasik 2663 2651 2584 2672 2648 2659
Bhusawal 2735 2656 2561 2666 2649 2914
Parli 2649 2661 2573 2765 2652 2779
Paras 3200 3196 3105 3262 3105 3291
Similar case may be put up to the Hon’ble Commission highlighting the judgment of Appellate
Tribunal of Electricity (ATE) in appeal no. 81 of 2007 in Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
(IPGCL) Vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).
An excerpt from the judgment for approval of SHR for IPGCL Units reads as follows.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
58
“The petitioner (IPGCL) submitted before the Commission that in order to comply with the directions
of Delhi Pollution Control Committee the generating station was proposed to be closed down and
therefore no R&M expenses could be taken for improvement or even maintain the same station heat
rate. We are informed during the arguments that the final decision to close down was taken after the
end of 2006-07. The final closing will be in 2010. In view of this situation, it will not only be fair for
the Commission to bear with the station heat rate which the appellant has been able to achieve for
this station during the period in question.”
Excerpt of JERC order for PTPS for the FY 2010-11 giving due consideration to ageing effect
“In view of the analysis and directions given in Hon’ble APTEL’s Order dated 8.5.2008 and also
considering that many Units of PTPS are more than 35-40 years old and it may not be feasible for the
licensee to achieve the operational targets, the Commission has now decided to relax the norms of
the operational parameters vis-à-vis the target set in the previous Tariff Orders. The Commission sets
the timelines for the improvement of operational parameters as per the revised norms for attaining
PLF of 45% and SHR of 2950 Kcal/Kwh by the end of FY 2013-14.”
Table 41: Relaxed norms approved by the JERC in case of vintage thermal power plant (PTPS)
Approved Operating
Norm FY 2008-09 FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14
PLF in % 34 36 38 40 42 45
SHR (kCal/kWh) 3450 3350 3250 3150 3050 2950
The Petitioner prays the Hon’ble Commission to consider the above-mentioned genuine difficulties
in achieving the norms and the regulatory approach adopted by SERCs while approving the station
heat rate.
The design turbine heat rate & boiler efficiency of RGTPS Unit-1&2 are 1954 Kcal/kWh & 87.2%
respectively. The design station heat rate of these Units works out to 2240.83 Kcal/kWh and the
normative station heat rate as per CERC regulation, dated 19-01-09 would be 2240.83 x 1.065 = 2386
Kcal/kWh. Therefore station heat rates for RGTPS Unit-1&2 are fixed as 2386 Kcal/kWh.
The Petitioner has proposed a following Station Heat Rate for the FY 2012-13 as given in the table
below:
Table 42: Proposed Station Heat rate for the FY 2012-13
Sl. No Name of Plant / Unit Proposed Station Heat Rate in Kcal/ Kwh for FY 2012-13
1. PTPS Unit-1 to 4 3,336.63
2. PTPS Unit-5 2,935.19
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
59
Sl. No Name of Plant / Unit Proposed Station Heat Rate in Kcal/ Kwh for FY 2012-13
3. PTPS Unit-6 2,954.60
4. PTPS Unit-7 2,585.86
5. PTPS Unit-8 2,584.83
PTPS Total 2,899.41
6. DCRTPP Unit-1 2,500.00
7. DCRTPP Unit-2 2,500.00
DCRTPP Total 2,500.00
8. RGTPP Unit-1 2,386.47
9. RGTPP Unit-2 2,386.47
RGTPP Total 2,386.47
The proposed Station Heat Rate (SHR) for FY 2012-13 for the HPGCL power plants as shown in the
table above is subject to adjustment at the end of each year based on the actual Station Heat Rate
(SHR) for the plants.
4.4. Auxiliary Consumption
Auxiliary Consumption for a generating station depends on quality of coal it receives at the feeding
point, the nos. of frequent start-ups and shut downs it encompasses and the ageing of the
equipment of the station. In addition the no. of drives being used in actual operation on account of
the decline in the above mentioned factors would increase leading to an increase in auxiliary
consumption.
An example of Maharashtra state wherein MERC in its order for MSPGCL for APR of FY 09-10 and
tariff for FY 10-11 has also approved the auxiliary consumption of FY 09-10 based on actual auxiliary
consumption for FY 08-09 on account of vintage of stations and poor quality of coal. Relevant
particulars of the case are as under:
“MERC Order for MSPGCL for APR of FY 2009-10 and Tariff for FY 2010-11 (Case No. 102 of 2009)
· MSPGCL submitted that the Auxiliary Consumption for the first six months of FY 2009-10 for
Paras was 15.00%, and projected Auxiliary Consumption of 13.38% for second half of the
year, which is considerably higher than the approved auxiliary consumption of 9.70% in FY
2009-10, on account of the vintage of the stations and poor quality of coal. MSPGCL further
submitted that the capacity of Unit-2 has been derated w.e.f. April 2007 and therefore, the
auxiliary consumption for the Unit has increased. The other factors that are responsible for
such increase is the partial loading due to inferior quantity of coal and supply of wet coal in
the rainy season. MSPGCL has projected the auxiliary consumption of 14.10% for FY 2009-10
and 13.38% for FY 2010-11. It is also observed that there has been a considerable increase in
the auxiliary consumption as compared to previous year's 12.18%.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
60
· The Commission in its Order dated March 5, 2010 in Case No. 16 of 2008 observed that the
Auxiliary Consumption norm suggested by the independent agency (CPRI) for FY 2008-09 for
some of the stations was substantially higher than the actual auxiliary consumption and
hence, the Commission approved the Auxiliary Consumption norm for FY 2009-10 based on
actual auxiliary consumption for FY 2008-09. The Commission at this stage has not revised
the auxiliary consumption norm for FY 2009-10. For FY 2010-11, the Commission has
considered the norms suggested by CPRI.”
Table 43: Comparison of the proposed and approved auxiliary consumption in case of MSPGCL and MERC case
Name of the
thermal Station MYT Order
FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11
MSPGCL CPRI Approved by
Commission MSPGCL CPRI
Approved by
Commission
Paras 9.70% 14.10% 12.18% 12.18% 13.38% 12.45% 12.45%
A similar example of relaxation in auxiliary consumption norms can be seen in UPERC order 08-09 for
UPRVUNL. Relevant excerpt of the order is reproduced below.
“Excerpt from UPERC Order for UPRVUNL for FY 2008-09 for allowing relaxation in auxiliary
consumption norms
In order dt.13.10.08, the Commission also observed that it was not averse to consider difficulty, if
any, being experienced by the petitioner in achieving the operational norms at the time of
determination of tariff. The Commission is aware of consumption of increased quantity of input due
to high energy loss in auxiliaries in comparison to that on bench mark values, but petitioner’s failure
to carry out timely maintenance, which has actually led to higher auxiliary consumptions in the
plants, can also not be ignored. The petitioner attributes the failure of maintenance to non-
availability of adequate funds due to defaults in payment by the Respondents. In such situation, the
Commission is of the view that impact of inefficiency in Obra-A, Obra- B, Harduaganj, Panki and
Parichha should be shared by the Petitioner and the Respondents. Half of the increased auxilliary
consumption above the benchmarks shall be borne by the Respondents for their failure in timely
payment and the rest half shall be afforded by the petitioner for not being diligent in realising its
revenue.
In view of the above decision, Auxiliary Consumption as approved by the Commission is given
below:
Table 44: Proposed and approved auxiliary consumption UPRVUNL and UPERC case
Name of the Station Aux. consumption % ( in
Regulation)
Aux. consumption % ( in
Petition)
Aux. consumption %
(Approved)
Obra A 10 12 11
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
61
Obra B 9 12 10.5
Panki 10 12 11
Harduaganj 11 12 11.5
Parichha 11 12 11.5
Following table gives the trends in the auxiliary consumption for HPGCL plants from FY 2004-05
onwards.
Table 45: Trends in the Auxiliary Consumption
Name of the Plant FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
FY 12
(upto
Oct’11)
PTPS-1 (Unit-1 to 4) 12.13 11.75 11.59 12.13 11.48 11.4 12 12.35
PTPS-2 (Unit-5 to 8) 9.80 9.06 8.74 8.81 8.80 9.13 9.66 10.00
PTPS, Panipat 10.76 9.79 9.48 9.58 9.42 9.73 10.19 10.65
DCRTPP, Yamunanagar 9.33 9.29 9.73 9.49
RGTPP, Hisar
7.05
Faridabad Thermal Power Plant 12.94 13.1 14.96 14.82 16.32 16.07
HPGCL Thermal Total 11.04 10.08 9.8 9.93 9.66 9.77 10.06 9.44
WYC and Kakroi (Hydel)
In the ensuing Tariff petition the petitioner has proposed Unit wise auxiliary consumption as given in
the following table. For the PTPS Unit-1 to 6 the petitioner has proposed the auxiliary consumption
based on three years average of the actual auxiliary consumption. For Unit- 7 & 8 of PTPS and
DCRTPS Unit-1 & 2 the petitioner has proposed auxiliary consumption in line with the HERC norms
dated 18th
Dec’08. For the RGTPS the petitioner has proposed the auxiliary consumption on
normative basis.
Table 46: Proposed Auxiliary consumption for the FY 2012-13
Name of the Plant FY 2012-13 (Projected)
PTPS-1 (Unit-1 to 4) 11.63
PTPS-2 (Unit-5) 9.99
PTPS-2 (Unit-6) 9.55
PTPS-2 (Unit-7) 9.00
PTPS-2 (Units-8) 9.00
PTPS (Panipat Thermal Power Station, Panipat) 9.93
DCRTPP, Yamunanagar Unit-1 9.00
DCRTPP, Yamunanagar Unit-2 9.00
DCRTPP, Yamunanagar 9.00
RGTPP, Hisar Unit-1 6.00
RGTPP, Hisar Unit-2 6.00
RGTPP, Hisar 6.00
HPGCL Thermal Total 8.19
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
62
Name of the Plant FY 2012-13 (Projected)
WYC and Kakroi (Hydel) 1.00
As per Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of
Generation Tariff) Regulations, 2008;
“During stabilization period, normative auxiliary consumption shall be reckoned at 0.5 per cent
over and above the norms. The Commission may relax the above norms on a case-to-case basis
based on unique plant lay out and inherent technology of the stations of older vintage.”
The Petitioner prays the Hon’ble Commission to consider the auxiliary Consumption for the vintage
PTPS Plants as proposed and also to consider the regulatory approach adopted by different SERCs
while approving the auxiliary Consumption in similar cases.
4.5. Fuel Price and Calorific Value
The calorific value considered for the computation of coal requirement is given in the following
table:
Table 47: Proposed Gross Calorific Value in Kcal./ Kg for coal and oil
Particulars PTPS, Panipat DCR TPP, Yamuna Nagar RGTPP, Khedar, Hisar
Gross Calorific Value of Coal (Kcal /Kg) 3,697 4,017 3,641
Gross Calorific Value of Oil (Kcal /Kg) 10,112 10,198 10,313
The calorific value is calculated by taking weighted average of the calorific value of coal and oil used
for the first five months of the FY 2011-12. The Fuel cost, both coal and oil for each station has been
calculated based on the actual average cost of the coal purchased during the first five month of the
FY 2011-12. The cost of coal also includes the transit loss. The details of the fuel cost taken are
mentioned in the following table below:
Table 48: Cost of fuel considered for calculating the variable cost
Type of the Fuel PTPS Panipat DCRTPP, Yamunagar RGTPP Hisar HPGCL
Rate of coal/ MT 3447.96 3458.77 3403.15 3433.30
Rate of Oil/ KL 37243.58 35818.93 40976.08 38325.14
4.6. Specific Oil Consumption
For the Unit-1 to 4 of PTPS, the petitioner proposes specific oil consumption as 2 ml/ kWh and rest
of the Units of PTPS and other thermal plants petitioner proposes specific oil consumption of 1
ml/kwh.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
63
4.7. Coal Transit Loss
The petitioner has considered following coal transit loss:
Table 49: Proposed coal transit Loss
Particular PTPS, Panipat DCR TPP, Yamuna Nagar RGTPP, Khedar, Hisar
Coal transit Loss 4.35 3.34 3.34
The transit loss has been discussed in details in the chapter No 2 on performance of the HPGCL. Here
the average transit loss for the last three years has been considered while calculating the final coal
requirement. The petitioner prays Hon’ble Commission to approve the coal transit loss as proposed
in the petition subject to adjustment at the end of each year based on the actual transit loss for each
power plants of HPGCL.
4.8. Moisture Loss:
HPGCL for its RGTPP, Khedar, Hisar power plant IPGCL is getting washed coal to the extent of 5.5
MTPA in FY 2011-12 pursuant to the contract with four (4) washery operators. During benefaction of
coal through washing technique, coal absorbs water resulting in higher weight at the time of loading.
The extra moisture evaporates during transit and storage. Therefore, usage of Washed coal leads to
higher moisture content and results into higher losses during transit. The loss of approx. 3% is due to
extra moisture in washed coal used in the Stations. Since, the coal transit loss in terms of moisture
loss is beyond the control of HPGCL, the Hon’ble HERC is requested to allow moisture loss @ 3% for
its RGTPP Coal based stations for FY 2012-13.
Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal of Electricity in the appeal filed by IPGCL in regard to MYT Tariff Order for
FY 2007-08 to FY 2010-11 has given the following ruling in its Order dated 07.4.2011 in respect of O
& M expenses:
22. “According to the Appellant, the State Commission has allowed a normative coal
transit loss of 0.8% by holding that the same is nationally accepted loss level as prescribed
in the Tariff Regulations of the Central Commission. It is noticed that the State Commission
has rejected the claim of the Appellant merely on the ground that NTPC had not
challenged the coat transit loss for the Dadri and Badarpur Stations which requires the
same washing of coal. As pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, the ground
that NTPC had been allowed only 0.8% coal transit loss and the same had not been
challenged by the NTPC cannot be the valid ground to deny the claim of the Appellant. The
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
64
important aspect that the State Commission has failed to consider is that the transit loss
cannot be the same both for unwashed and washed coal. The weight of the coal at the
time of loading is significantly increased due to higher moisture content which evaporates
during transit and storage. We notice that the State Commission has not given a reasoned
order regarding transit loss. Instead of examining the transit loss in case of the Appellant’s
power station the State Commission has noticed that the use of washed coal is likely to
improve the functioning of the plant. This matter, therefore, needs reexamination.
Therefore, the State Commission is required to determine the actual coal transit loss in
respect of the Appellant’s Power Station without comparing the coal transit loss with the
NTPC. This point is answered accordingly”.
Since, the higher coal transit loss is beyond the control of IPGCL, the Hon’ble Commission is
requested to true- up transit & moisture loss @ 3.8% for its Coal based stations for FY 2007-08 to
FY 2010-11 and approves the same percentage for FY 2011-12 for Rajghat Power House.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
65
5. Estimated expenses for FY 2012-13
In this section the Petitioner has provided details of the fixed components of the tariff based on
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009 and
estimates based on the actual data of HPGCL. The detailed submission is provided in the following
sections:
5.1. Return on Equity
HPGCL submits that it has considered the equity base as per the books of accounts and has
considered a return of INR 425.52 crore for the FY 2012-13. So far as the funding of additional
capitalization is concerned, HPGCL has envisaged a 100% debt funding for the same. The return on
equity has been calculated at the opening balance of equity capital towards existing plants of HPGCL
based on the CERC norms of 15.5% pre-tax. The Petitioner prays to the Commission that for the
RGTPP generating station, an additional return of 0.5% pre-tax to be allowed for completion of the
Project within time limit (44 months for Unit-1 and 50 months for Unit-2), based on the CERC norms.
The overall calculation for return on equity for the existing stations of HPGCL is provided below:
Table 50: Return on Equity on existing stations (In Rs. Crore)
Particulars FY 2012-13
Opening Balance of Equity (A) 2165.1
Return on Equity 425.52
The Unit wise return on equity calculation is computed in the prescribed format for individual
existing stations.
5.2. Income-tax
The Petitioner has considered the income tax for FY 2012-13 on the eligible return on equity for each
station and computed the income tax at the MAT rate of 20.01% (18.50% base rate +5% surcharge
+3% cess). The estimated tax portion included in the Return on Equity comes out to be INR 85.13
Crores.
5.3. Interest on Loan Capital and Finance Charges
The Petitioner has considered the actual interest rate as applicable to existing loans for computation
of interest charges. Whereas the finance charges constitute of Guarantee fees and other Bank
charges, etc. The basis of projections of the interest and finance charges is based on the actual
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
66
charges incurred during the FY 2010-11, as per annual accounts. However, after an interval of reset
period i.e. three (3) years the interest and finance charges would be adjusted as per actuals.
The plant wise details of all the existing and new loans are provided in the relevant forms as
submitted to the Hon’ble Commission. The interest expenses and other finance charges for various
plants, as proposed by the Petitioner, are summarized in the table below:
Table 51: Interest and Finance Charges for 2011-12 (In Rs. Crore)
Station Proposed Interest and Finance Charges
FY 2012-13
PTPS Unit-1 to 4) 14.74
PTPS (Unit-5) 2.82
PTPS (Unit-6) 13.07
PTPS (Unit-7) 27.67
PTPS (Unit-8) 27.67
PTPS (Unit – 1 to 8) 85.96
DCRTPP Unit-1 86.83
DCRTPP Unit-2 86.83
DCRTPP Unit-1&2 173.66
RGTPP Unit-1 186.04
RGTPP Unit-2 186.04
RGTPP Unit-1&2 372.09
WYC & Karkoi 3.26
Total HPGCL 634.97
5.4. Depreciation
HPGCL has calculated station wise depreciation, on the opening Gross Fixed Asset (GFA) at the rates
specified in the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff)
Regulations, 2009. For the purpose of this petition, HPGCL has considered the opening Gross Fixed
Assets for FY 2012-13 based on the addition/deletion/transfers as estimated in the accounts for FY
2012-13. The table below presents the proposed Unit-wise depreciation for FY2012-13.
Table 52: Proposed Unit wise Depreciation (In Rs. Crore)
Station Proposed Depreciation
FY 2012-13
PTPS Unit-1 to 4) 28.91
PTPS (Unit-5) 12.20
PTPS (Unit-6) 50.89
PTPS (Unit-7) 44.34
PTPS (Unit-8) 44.35
PTPS (Unit-1 to 8) 180.69
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
67
Station Proposed Depreciation
DCRTPP Unit-1 51.10
DCRTPP Unit-2 51.10
DCRTPP Unit-1&2 102.21
RGTPP Unit-1 88.68
RGTPP Unit-2 88.68
RGTPP Unit-1&2 177.36
WYC & Karkoi 9.43
Total HPGCL 469.69
The details of such expenses have been shown in the specific formats attached as annexed to this
petition.
5.5. Interest on Working Capital (IoWC)
HPGCL has projected the working capital requirement in a normative manner as per the Central
Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009. The interest
on working capital has been computed at the SBI PLR as on the date of submission of the tariff
petition at @14.75%. The station wise IoWC for all the stations is provided in the table below:
Table 53: Normative Interest on Working Capital for FY 11-12 (In Rs. Crore)
Station Proposed Interest on Working Capital
FY 2012-13
PTPS Unit-1 to 4 50.74
PTPS (Unit-5) 25.48
PTPS (Unit-6) 27.36
PTPS (Unit-7) 30.39
PTPS (Unit-8) 28.36
PTPS (Unit-1 to 8) 162.32
DCRTPP Unit-1 34.24
DCRTPP Unit-2 31.88
DCRTPP Unit1&2 66.12
RGTPP Unit-1 68.34
RGTPP Unit-2 63.50
RGTPP Unit-1&2 131.85
WYC & Karkoi 1.48
Total HPGCL 361.77
5.6. Operation and Maintenance Expenses
The O&M expenses comprise of Repair & Maintenance (R&M) charges, Employees cost and
Administrative expenses. The estimates for O&M cost for PTPS Unit-1 to 4 is based on the average of
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
68
actual level of such expenses for three preceding years escalated by 5.72% based on CERC norms to
account for inflation, pursuant to Hon’ble Commission’s observations in Tariff Order dated 16th
April
2010 which says that
“The guiding factor for working out O&M expenses should have been the actual level of such
expenses incurred during the preceding three years for the existing stations escalated by an
appropriate factor to account for inflation.”
Accordingly, the O&M cost computations for PTPS-1 (Unit-1 to 4) are based on the details of actual
O&M expenses in the preceding three years FY2008-09, FY2009-10 and FY 2010-11 as per the annual
accounts.
In line with Hon’ble Commission’s order for previous years, the O&M expense in case of PTPS Unit-5
to 8, DCRTPP Unit-2& RGTPP Unit-1&2 are based on the CERC Regulations, as applicable for the FY
2012-13. The O&M expenses proposed for WYC & Karkoi are based on the O&M expense approved
by Hon’ble Commission during the previous Tariff Order dated 18th
April 2011, escalated by 5.72% in
line with CERC Tariff Regulations 2009-14 to account for the impact of inflation. The table below
summarizes the O&M expenses submitted by the Petitioner. The petitioner prays to the Hon’ble
Commission to allow O&M as per the submissions.
Table 54: Proposed O&M Expenses for FY2012-13 (In Rs. Crore)
Station Proposed O&M Expenses (Rs. Crore)
FY 2012-13
PTPS Unit-1 to 4 172.5
PTPS (Unit-5) 45.17
PTPS (Unit-6) 45.17
PTPS (Unit-7) 53.78
PTPS (Unit-8) 53.78
PTPS (Unit-1 to 8) 370.4
DCRTPP Unit-1 56.73
DCRTPP Unit-2 56.73
DCRTPP Unit-1&2 113.46
RGTPP Unit-1 82.92
RGTPP Unit-2 82.92
RGTPP Unit-1&2 165.84
WYC & Karkoi 21.03
Total HPGCL 670.73
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
69
The Appellate Tribunal For Electricity vide Appeal No. 81 of 2007 in the matter of Indraprastha
Power Generation Co. Ltd. Versus Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission has given the following
judgment on 10th
January, 2008 related to the pas through of O&M expenses:
“O&M Expenses: As mentioned in Paragraph 4(a) above, the Commission has strictly adhered to the
normative increase as suggested by the CEA. The petitioner requested the Commission to ask the CEA
to re-consider the report. The Commission, however, went by the CEA report which according to the
Commission had been prepared after taking all relevant parameters of operation into consideration.
The Commission, however, was uncertain as to how long the IP station can be operated based upon
various conditions imposed by statutory authority / courts etc. The Commission therefore did not
relax the norms. However, the Commission did not consider if it was proper to give any further time
to the appellant to improve its performance for the purpose of reducing cost.
11) Reverting to the report of the CEA, we find that the authority itself never meant that the norms
prescribed by it be strictly taken for compliance. In recommendation No.VI, the authority itself says
that the assessment is recommendatory in nature and within the framework of constraints /
limitations of the data furnished. The Commission feels satisfied with applying the CEA norms and
also feels compelled to do so for otherwise the interest of consumers will suffer. The Commission is
duty bound to allow all reasonable O&M expenses as pass through. The Commission is allowed to
only impose a prudence check. If the O&M expense had escalated within the norms prescribed by
CEA, the task of the Commission would have been quite easy. However, in the present case, the O&M
expenses have gone higher than the CEA norms. The Commission, therefore, was required to examine
the expenditure incurred by the appellant for various purposes and to detect if the appellant had
incurred any avoidable expense. The appellants are only successors in interest of the erstwhile DVB
and it has inherited some old power plants. It, along with power plant, has also received a large
number of employees which in the present legal regime cannot be shed immediately. The appellant
has attempted to reduce the number of employees by offering VRS. The plant being old the
maintenance expense can also be higher than what is estimated at the given point of time. The fact
that the appellant has been making efforts to improve its performance is clear from the figures of
actual heat rate for 2005-06 and 2006-07 which show that there is a fall in the station heat rate in
2006 compared to in the year 2005. It cannot be said that the appellant had altogether been
irresponsible in its expenditure. Therefore, it will be appropriate for the Commission to examine
individual items of expenditure and disallow only those which it finds as avoidable or imprudently
high. We had an occasion to examine the concept of prudence check in the case of NDPL Vs. DERC
Energy Law Reports (APTEL) 2007 193. The Commission had allowed an A&G expenses for
distribution companies of Delhi only to the escalation of 4% over the previous year’s expenses. The
Commission had made deduction on account of legal expenses and other general expenses. We held
that the Commission would have to allow such expenses which are justifiable and can disallow
such expenditures which were not justified. The Commission cannot simply apply the normative
rates of escalation and feel that its function of regulation is thereby over. While the Commission is
duty bound to regulate the generation, transmission and distribution keeping in view the interest
of consumers, it is also bound to see that the generator, transmitter and distributor gets a fair
return, over and above the expenses. We, therefore, have no option but to hold that the
Commission has to do some more exercise in arriving at the correct figure of O&M expenses which
can be taken as pass through in tariff. It has to examine individual items of expenditure and reject
those which were clearly avoidable or imprudent or impermissible and allow the rest as pass
through.”
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
70
6. Other Considerations
6.1. Two Part tariff
· HPGCL proposes to determine tariff for sale of power of HPGCL for FY 2012-13 on Two Part
Tariff basis.
· Incentive for higher generation shall be at the rate of capacity charges per Unit in line with
present CERC Regulations. Similarly capacity charges for lower generation shall be recovered
on pro-rata basis.
· PLF for recovery of capacity charges shall be worked out by including deemed generation on
account of backing down instructions/ scheduling of lower generation than declared
availability
· HPGCL shall have the right to sell power not scheduled by Discoms to third party(ies) out of
State and for that power sold outside state, HPGCL shall be entitled to recover fixed/
capacity charges from the Haryana Distribution Licensee.
6.2. Recovery of Capacity (Fixed) Charges
· Capacity charges including incentive shall be recovered on pro-rata basis.
6.3. Third party sell in case of payment default by distribution licensee
HPGCL is under huge cash crunch scenario because of the poor payment history of the distribution
company of Haryana. Both the distribution companies in the state have an outstanding of around Rs
3242.28 Crore (Consisting of Rs. 2023.48 Crore from UHBVN, Panchkula and Rs. 1218.80 Crore from
DHBVN, Hisar) as on 27th
Nov’11. The result is that HPGCL, which supplies power to the two discoms,
is in a tight spot and nearly defaulted on its loan repayments. Apart from that, the non-payment of
bills in time by the distribution Licensee is causing HPGCL to pay heavily on short term funds for
working capital loan requirement and therefore there is an urgent need to enforce payment
discipline amongst the distribution Licensee. HPGCL humbly prays before Hon'ble Commission that
HPGCL should have the right to sell the power to third party outside state in the event of payment
default beyond 60 days for any of its bill by the distribution licensee of Haryana and in that case to
recover the fixed charge of the power sold outside the state from distribution Licensee of Haryana.
6.4. Terms of payment and adjustment of receipts towards outstanding dues
The terms of payment and adjustment of receipts towards outstanding dues of HPGCL shall be as per
HERC order 793-796/ HERC dated 03.07.2008. However, as Fuel Price Adjustment (FPA) is not
included in the working capital, no rebate on the same shall be allowed. Further, on the same
ground it is prayed that the payment of FPA shall be made by the Haryana discoms within seven (7)
days of the presentation of the bill failing which surcharge for delayed payment at HERC already
approved rate shall be applicable from the date of presentation of the bill.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
71
6.5. Application Fees and Publication Expenses
The application filing fee and the expenses incurred on publication of notices in the application for
approval of tariff be allowed to be recovered directly from the beneficiaries i.e. UHBVNL & DHBVNL
as per CERC Norms.
Petition for Approval of Tariff for the year FY 2012-13
72
7. Annexures
7.1. Audited Annual Accounts for FY 2010-11
7.2. Cost Accounting record along with Cost Audit report for FY 2009-10
7.3. Minutes of meeting of “Steering Committee for Power Planning” under the
Chairmanship of Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary (Power), Govt. of
Haryana dated 20th
September 2011
7.4. Appellate Order on Appeal No. 81 of 2007 dated 10th
January, 2008
7.5. Appellate Order on Appeal No. 26 of 2008 dated 7th
April, 2011
7.6. CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009, Statement of Objects &
Reasons
7.7. Cost benefit of Imported Coal
7.8. Unit wise depreciation
