For approval of R&M scheme of BTG of Parichha Unit-1.

Transcription

1 PRESENT: Petition No of 2016 BEFORE THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION LUCKNOW Date of Order: Hon ble Sri Desh Deepak Verma, Chairman 2. Hon ble Sri S.K. Agarwal, Member IN THE MATTER OF: For approval of R&M scheme of BTG of Parichha Unit-1. AND IN THE MATTER OF Chief Engineer(R&M), U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL), Shakti Bhawan, 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow Petitioner AND 1. UP Power Corporation Ltd., 14th Floor, Shakti Bhawan Extn., 14-Ashok Marg, Lucknow 2. Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., PN Road, Lucknow Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 132 KV S/S Bhikari Vidyut Nagar, Varanasi 4. Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Victoria Park, Meerut 5. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Galina Road, Agra Page 1 of 5

2 6. Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., KESA House, Kanpur Respondents Following were presents: 1. Sri B.S. Tiwary, Dir. (T) 2. Sri V.P. Srivastava, CE PPA UPPCL 3. Sri Ashok Rathi, CE, UPRVUNL 4. Sri S.P. Chaubey, CE 5. Sri Vinod Asthana, SE UPPCL 6. Sri Krishna Mohan, SE, UPRVUNL 7. Sri R.K. Dagore, SE, UPRVUNL 8. Sri Haroon Aslam, EE UPPCL 9. Sri Manish Garg, Consultant, UPPCL ORDER (Date of Hearing ) 1. The petitioner, UPRVUNL, filed the petition to seek approval of R&M scheme of BTG of Unit-1 of Parichha TPS to reduce its down time arising out of various technical problems in BTG area systems. The other expected benefits are as follows: i. Annual PLF > 70% ii. Specific Oil Consumption < 2.60 KL/MU iii. Auxiliary Power Consumption < 10.7% iv. Specific Coal consumption < 0.80 Kg/Kwh v. Heat Rate < 2980 kcal/kwh 2. The petitioner submitted that the estimated cost of the R&M scheme, as also approved by ETF in March 2013, is Rs crore and is expected to be completed by October, The loan of Rs crore for funding the scheme has been sanctioned by the lending agency PFC and the rest Rs crore is to be equity funded by GoUP. 3. In last hearing UPPCL argued that under the prevailing Regulations, R&M scheme when sought should be accompanied with its DPR and there is nothing in the scheme to reduce variable charges post R&M to make the Units competitive. Therefore, requested the Commission to not to approve the above scheme. Page 2 of 5

3 4. UPRVUNL vide its letter dated submitted DPR of the R&M scheme which depicts total estimated cost of project as Rs crores and estimated payback period of one year. The total cost of supply and works stands at Rs crores (including taxes), contingency 5% stands at Rs crores and IDC@ 12.25% stands at Rs crores. 5. UPRVUNL also submitted as follows: I. In line with the Commission s order dated wherein R&M of BTG of Unit-2 of Parichha TPS and of Unit-1&2 of Parichha TPS were approved, they have had more than Rs crore on before the Commission s order dated for deletion of Unit-1. The approval for ESP work of Unit-1 was granted by the Commission through previous tariff order and Rs crores has been on it. II. So far as BTG of Unit-1 is concerned, subsequent to approval of R&M scheme of BTG Unit-1 for Rs crores by ETF on , they have Rs crores on BTG till the issuance of the directive of the Commission i.e III. Thus in total UPRVUNL have Rs crores on R&M scheme of Unit-1 before the issuance of the Commission s order. IV. It is submitted that scheme is implemented to achieve better operational performance and reduce variable cost of generation. It is also submitted that most of the work has been completed and rest of it shall be completed when Unit is under shut down. V. On account of poor environmental performance and deteriorating condition it was necessary to complete BTG, and ESP works. VI. The petitioner had filed review of the Commission s order dated The petitioner agreed that it should have sought prior approval of the Commission for starting R&M work but Page 3 of 5

4 since it was due to serious local opposition to running of machine as it was causing environmental problems, the petitioner was forced to shut the machine down on And since the equipment worth Rs crores were already procured by the petitioner before , the petitioner utilized the opportunity to undertake R&M work so as to complete the work within stipulated time. VII. The petitioner argued the argument of UPPCL that fixed cost of the plant is Rs. 7 per unit is misleading as it is due nonscheduling from plant. VIII. The petitioner submitted that it has undertaken various measures to reduce variable charges that include swapping of coal mines to reduce coal transportation cost, signing of MOU for third party sampling to ensure coal quality, reduction in demurrage charges and reduction in APC etc. The petitioner humbly requested the Commission to condone its behavior for initiating R&M work for BTG of Parichha Unit-1 without obtaining approval of the Commission and requested the Commission to kindly approve the scheme. 6. The submitted status of total expenditure made on R&M of Parichha Unit1 till June 2017 is as given below: Parichha Unit-1 Under R&M scheme submitted for approval BTG Electrical Civil Under R&M scheme approved previously ESP ( in Rs. ( in Rs. Already Yet to be Total Without taxes/duties Page 4 of 5

5 7. The figures of total expenditure incurred on Parichha Unit-2 under approved R&M scheme stands as given below: Parichha Unit-2 Boiler Under R&M scheme submitted for approval Turbine Electrical C&I Civil Misc. Already Yet to be NIL NIL Total All figures with taxes 8. At the outset, the Commission expressed its displeasure with UPRVUNL for having initiated R&M the work without getting prior approval from the Commission. The Commission sought from UPRVUNL to submit the rational for excluding BTG of Unit-1 of 2X110 MW under R&M scheme and going for R&M of BTG of Unit-2 only when BTG of both these Units had completed same life. 9. It is learnt that in respect of Parichha 2X110 MW Units, UPCL has asked UPRVUNL to not to declare capacity for scheduling. The Commission directs UPPCL and UPRVUNL to make their stand clear in respect of capacity declaration of this Unit (i.e. Parichha Unit no. 1) for scheduling. 10. The petition is kept in abeyance till submission of the above. Place: Lucknow Dated: (S.K. Agarwal) (Desh Deepak Verma) Member Chairman Page 5 of 5