DO-15 of 2017-20062017

Before the
MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005
Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976
Email: mercindia@merc.gov.in
Website: www.mercindia.org.in / www. merc.gov.in
CASE No. 15 of 2017
Dated: 20 June, 2017
CORAM: Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member

Shri Deepak Lad, Member
Petition of MSEDCL seeking directions for optimization of power generation in the

State of Maharashtra by reducing the technical minimum limit of Generating Units as
per CERC norms
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) : Petitioner
Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre (MSLDC) : Respondent No.1

Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MSPGCL) : Respondent No. 2
JSW Energy Ltd. : Impleaded Respondent No. 3
RattanIndia Power Ltd. (RPL) : Impleaded Respondent No. 4
Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. (APML) : Impleaded Respondent No. 5
Representative of the Petitioner : Shri Paresh Bhagwat (Rep.)
Representatives of the Respondent No. 1 : Shri D.K. Rokade (Rep.)

Representatives of the Respondent No. 2 : Shri V.P. Rathod (Rep.)
Representatives of the Respondent No. 3 : Shri Prafull Katiyar (Rep.)
Representative of the Respondent No. 4 : Shri Nilesh Thakur (Rep.)
Representative of the Respondent No. 5 : Shri Jignesh Langalia (Rep.)
Authorized Consumer Representative: : Dr. Ashok Pendse, TBIA

Daily Order
Heard the representatives of the Petitioner, Respondents and Authorized Consumer

Representative.
1. Representative of the Petitioner stated that the Petition has been filed under Sections
33(1), 33(4) and 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (EA, 2003) seeking direction to set the
technical minimum limit at a uniform level of 55% in line with the recent amendment in
Indian Electricity Grid Code for all Generating Units coming under the Commission’s
jurisdiction and having PPA with MSEDCL. MSEDCL highlighted the background of
the Petition and stated that:
i. As per the CERC (Indian Electricity Grid Code) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations
2016, notified on 6 April, 2016, the technical minimum for Generating Units of
Central Generating Stations and Inter-State Generating Stations has been fixed as
55% of Maximum Continuous Rating (MCR) loading or installed capacity of the
unit, irrespective of age and design of the Generating Units.
ii. All the Inter-State Generating Stations, including NTPC Stations, are following
this revised technical minimum since April, 2016.
iii. Technical minimum of 55% is based on the Control Load (i.e. 50% of MCR) as
specified in CEA (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical Plants and
Electric Lines) Regulations, 2010, and that has been retained in its subsequent
amendments.
iv. The reduction in technical minimum upto 55% for Thermal Generating Units in
Maharashtra will reduce MSEDCL’s power purchase expenses. It will also
provide additional flexibility of 1703 MW in real time operations, which in turn
will help in accommodating generation from renewable energy sources and
maintaining grid stability.
v. As per PPAs executed under Section 63 of EA, 2003, the IPPs such as JSW
Energy Ltd., APML and RPL need to follow the amendment in IEGC.
2. In response, MSPGCL made a presentation and stated that:
i. The term “technical minimum” is neither defined in the EA, 2003 nor in any
Regulations of CERC or MERC.
ii. The approach adopted by the CERC of specifying 55% as technical minimum on
the basis of CEA recommendations is more idealistic than practical.
iii. Vide Order dated 2 August, 2012 in Case No. 109 of 2011, the Commission had
appointed Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) for ascertaining the technical
minimum of Generating Units in Maharashtra.
iv. Out of the 31 currently operating Thermal Units of MSPGCL, the technical
minimum for 18 Units is actually tested by CPRI.
v. MSEDCL’s prayer for ad-hoc fixation of technical minimum lower than that
scientifically measured should not be accepted as such an ad-hoc fixation will
have obvious adverse impact on Plant performance and Unit stability.
vi. MSEDCL has stated that the dynamics of the power sector has changed and thus
the earlier set norms by the Commission regarding technical minimum should be
changed. There is no merit in MSEDCL’s submission as the technology and
critical equipments for the MSPGCL Units, which were in service during the
CPRI study are still the same, and thus the practical difficulties envisaged at that
time are still prevailing.
vii. The low load operation has its obvious impact on plant performance parameters
such as Heat Rate, % Auxiliary Consumption and Secondary Fuel Oil
Consumption, which increases the fuel cost of the Plant. Also, coal quality and
coal mill combination available at the time of such low load operation is also
critically important in deciding the Unit’s stability and impact on Plant
performance parameters.
viii. Nothing has been mentioned by MSEDCL about the compensation to be provided
to the Generating Stations towards deterioration of performance parameters,
especially of the Generating Stations supplying power under Section 62 of EA,
2003.
ix. MSEDCL has estimated saving in power purchase expenses for December, 2016,
amounting to Rs.14.68 Cr. due to reduction in technical minimum to 55%.
However, the compensation on account of adverse impact on performance
parameters, due to backing down up to 55 %, may be approximately Rs. 17.31 Cr.
and the additional cost to be borne by the consumers would be Rs. 2.63 Cr.
x. Therefore, the Petition filed by MSEDCL needs to be rejected. However, if the
Commission is of the opinion that, considering the renewable energy integration
problems, the Thermal Generators need to run at lower load and hence allows
SLDC to back down Thermal Units below the “technical minimum” loading,
adequate compensation must be provided to the Generators in line with the IEGC
Fourth Amendment.
3. JSW Energy stated that :

i. As per CPRI test results, the technical minimum of JSW Unit No. 1 is 66%.
ii. Each Generating Unit, depending on various factors, would have a different
technical minimum limit and MSEDCL’s suggestion of 55% technical minimum
for all Generating Units would be arbitrary.
iii. However, if the Commission is inclined to revise the technical minimum, suitable
provision to compensate the Generating Companies for the efficiency and
operational loss on account of such revision has to be in place.
iv. Responses of MSPGCL and APML have not been received by JSW Energy Ltd.
To a query of the Commission, JSW Energy Ltd. expressed its inability to confirm safe
operation of its Unit at 55% technical minimum and stated that performance parameters
may not be maintained.
4. Representative of RPL stated that the hearing Notice was issued to RattanIndia Nashik
Power Ltd. (RNPL). Since no PPA exists between RNPL and MSEDCL, no Reply has
been filed. To a query of the Commission, it was stated that RPL will submit its Reply
shortly. The Commission directed RPL to make the submission within one week with
copy served on all parties.
5. APML suggested that an Approach Paper may be published covering all the issues
involved and seeking comments from stake-holders. Thereafter, new Regulations may be
framed. The Commission observed that the CERC Regulations are already in place and,
while applying these Regulations, machine specific technical issues may require
consideration.
6. MSLDC stated that:

i. Generating Companies such as Tata Power Company, Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.
and Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. along with other Generating Companies in the
State, should also be impleaded as Parties.
ii. Flexibility in grid operations would be improved if technical minimum is set at
55%.
iii. MSLDC has no objection to the revision in technical minimum as proposed by
MSEDCL, and that it would follow the directions of the Commission.
7. The Commission asked whether MSLDC has ever directed MSPGCL to operate its
Generating Units below the CPRI certified technical minimum limit. MSLDC replied
that no such direction was given and further stated that, in extreme surplus situations,
MSLDC adopts zero scheduling or reserve shutdown to maintain grid stability.
8. Dr. Ashok Pendse on behalf of Thane Belapur Industries Association (TBIA), an

Authorized Consumer Representative, stated that:-
i. Revision in technical minimum is necessary to address the issues of renewable
energy integration and maintain the grid stability.
ii. In some countries like Germany and Norway, the technical minimum limit for
Thermal Generating Units is as low as 25 to 30%.
iii. The technical minimum limit for MSPGCL’s new Generating Units and also for
other IPPs needs to be ascertained, if not done so far.
9. In response, MSEDCL stated that:

i. Vide Order dated 5 May, 2017, technical minimum has been duly defined by the
CERC with specific norms.
ii. From MSPGCL’s presentation made during the hearing, it appears that operation
of MSPGCL’s Units at technical minimum of 55% is possible.
iii. NTPC is following the norms of 55% technical minimum for its Generating Units
since April, 2016.
10. The Commission observed that changes adopted, if any, by NTPC to achieve the above
norms in respect of operating parameters, Unit/system modifications or other procedural
changes may require to be examined, and MSEDCL may discuss and obtain the above
details from NTPC.
11. MSEDCL stated that MSPGCL’s new units need to follow the CEA Regulations, 2010.
The Commission observed that reduction in technical minimum may result in economic
benefits. However, technical minimum being an operational parameter for Generating
Units, it may require technical consideration also. The Commission also observed that, if
grid stability is the prime consideration for filing the present Petition, then ideally
MSLDC should have approached the Commission and not MSEDCL.
12. To a query of the Commission about compensating the Generating Companies towards
deterioration of performance parameters, MSEDCL did not respond. The Commission
observed that there are other options such as zero scheduling or reserve shutdown
available for optimization of power purchase expenses. The Commission also observed
that demand forecasting by MSEDCL, if improved, may mitigate the issue to a greater
extent.
13. The Commission directed that Tata Power Company- Generation Business, Reliance
Infrastructure Ltd.- Generation Business, Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd.- Generation
Business , Sai Wardha Power Ltd., EMCO, Ideal Energy Projects Ltd., Abhijeet MADC
Nagpur Energy Pvt. Ltd., BEST, Tata Power Company- Distribution Business and
Reliance Infrastructure Ltd.- Distribution Business be impleaded as Parties in the matter
and MSEDCL shall serve copies of the Petition to them for their response within one
week. The impleaded parties shall submit their replies within two weeks with copies to
all the Parties.
The next date of hearing will be communicated by the Secretariat of the

Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Deepak Lad) (Azeez M. Khan)
Member Member

DO-15 of 2017-20062017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DO-15 of 2017-20062017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DO-15 of 2017-20062017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

CASE No. 15 of 2017

Dated: 20 June, 2017

CORAM: Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member

Petition of MSEDCL seeking directions for optimization of power generation in the

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) : Petitioner

Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre (MSLDC) : Respondent No.1

Representative of the Petitioner : Shri Paresh Bhagwat (Rep.)

Representatives of the Respondent No. 1 : Shri D.K. Rokade (Rep.)

Authorized Consumer Representative: : Dr. Ashok Pendse, TBIA

Heard the representatives of the Petitioner, Respondents and Authorized Consumer

2. In response, MSPGCL made a presentation and stated that:

3. JSW Energy stated that :

6. MSLDC stated that:

8. Dr. Ashok Pendse on behalf of Thane Belapur Industries Association (TBIA), an

9. In response, MSEDCL stated that:

The next date of hearing will be communicated by the Secretariat of the

You might also like