Case No. 88 of Coram. Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member ORDER

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: Case No. 88 of 2017 In the matter of Petition of Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana regarding violation of Commission s directions on load shedding by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Coram Shri. Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri. Deepak Lad, Member Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Respondent Appearance: For the Petitioner: For the Respondent: For Consumer Representatives: Shri. Pratap Hogade Shri. Satish Chavan Dr. Ashok Pendse, TBIA Shri. R. Kaparthi, CMIA ORDER Date: 10 April, 2018 Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana (MVGS) has filed a Petition on 26 May, 2017, citing Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003, against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) alleging violation of the Commission s directions relating to load shedding. 2. MVGS prayers are as follows- MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 1 of 16

2 1) üö µöö Ö µöê ŸÖ üßœÿö ¾Öß Ö ˆ Ö»Ö² Ö ÃÖŸÖÖ ÖÖÆüß ¾Ö ÃÖ¾ÖÔ ÝÖÏÖÆüÛú ŸÖ üßœÿö ¾Öß Öê ÖÖê üß Ûú Öò ÃÖ üß ÖÖ ÖÔ ³Ö üÿö ÃÖŸÖÖ ÖÖÆüß üö µööÿöß»ö ÃÖ¾ÖÔ ¾Öß ÖÝÖÏÖÆüÛúÖÓ¾Ö ü 4000 ÖêÝÖò¾ÖÖò ü ¾ÖÖ ÖÛú ³ÖÖ ÖµÖ Ö Ö ²ÖêÛúÖµÖ êü Öß ü üßÿµöö»öö üþµööÿö Ö»Öê ÖÆêü ¾Ö ÖÖ. ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖ µöö ¾Ö ¾Ö Ö Ö êü ÖÖÓ ÖÖ ³ÖÓÝÖ Ûêú»ÖÖ ÖÆêü. µööãööšüß ÖÆüÖ ¾ÖŸÖ üþö ÛÓú Ö Öß ¾Ö ÃÖÓ²ÖÓ ÖßŸÖ ÖÛúÖ üß ¾Ö ÃÖõÖ Ö ÖÏÖ ÖÛúÖ üß (Competent Authority)úµÖÖÓ Öê¾Ö ü ¾Öß Ö ÛúÖµÖ üö 2003 ÓŸÖÝÖÔŸÖ Ö ÖµÖ Ö 142 ¾Ö 146 ¾ÖêµÖ ¾ÖîµÖ ŒŸÖÛú ÛúšüÖê ü Óü üöÿ ÖÛú ¾Ö ÖõÖÖŸ ÖÛú ÛúÖ ü¾öö Ô Ûú üþöêÿö µöö¾öß. 2) ³Ö ¾ÖµÖÖŸÖ ¾Öß Ö ˆ Ö»Ö² Ö ÃÖŸÖÖ ÖÖ ÖÖ. ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖ µöö Ö êü ÖÖ ÖãÃÖÖ ü ÝÖÏÖÆüÛúÖÓ¾Ö ü ÛúÖêÞÖŸÖêÆüß ³ÖÖ ü ÖµÖ Ö Ö ÆüÖêŸÖÖÛúÖ ÖÖ ÖµÖê µööãööšüß µöö ÖÏÛú üþöß ³µÖÖÃÖ ÃÖ ÖŸÖß Öê Öæ ÖÃÖÓ ÖæÞÖÔ ¾Ö ÃÖÜÖÖê»ÖŸÖ ÖÖÃÖÞÖß ¾ÆüÖ¾Öß. ŸµÖÖÃÖÖšüß ÖÖ. ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖ Öê ³µÖÖÃÖ ÃÖ ÖŸÖß ÖµÖãŒŸÖ Ûú üö¾öß ¾Ö ÃÖ ÖŸÖß µöö Æü¾ÖÖ»ÖÖ ÖãÃÖÖ ü Ö¾Ö µöûúÿöß ÃÖ¾ÖÔ ÛúÖµÖÔ¾ÖÖÆüß Ûú üþöêÿö µöö¾öß. 3) ŸÖ üßœÿö ¾Öß ÖêÃÖÖšüß Ã Ö ü ÖÛúÖ ü(ûú Öò ÃÖ üß ÖÖ ÖìÃÖ) ³Ö¹ý ÖÆüß ³ÖÖ ü ÖµÖ Ö Ö»ÖÖ ü»öê ÖÖÞÖÖ ü ÃÖê»ÖŸÖ ü ŸµÖÖ ŸÖ üßœÿöõö ÖŸÖê»ÖÖ ¾Ö Ûú Öò ÃÖ üß ÖÖ ÖìÃÖ ÖÖÛúÖÞÖŸÖÖÆüß ÖÔ ÖÖÆüß. µööãööšüß ³Ö ¾ÖµÖÖŸÖ Öã ÆüÖ ÃÖê Ö ü»µööãöýöïöæüûúöó Öß ŸÖ üßœÿö ³Ö ü»öê»öß Ûú Öò ÃÖ üß ÖÖ ÖìÃÖ Öß üœûú ÖÝÖÏÖÆüÛúÖÓ ÖÖ Ö üÿö ÖôûÖ¾Öß µööãööšüß µööêýµöÿöê Ö êü Ö ¾ÆüÖ¾ÖêŸÖ. 4) ÖÖ. ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖ Öê ¾ÖêôûÖê¾Öêôûß Ö êü ÖÖ«üÖ êü Ö ÖŸÖ Ûêú»Ö껵ÖÖ ¾Ö ÖÖÆüß ü Ûêú»Ö껵ÖÖ ³Öæ ÖÛêú ÖãÃÖÖ ü ¾Ö ÛúÖµÖ üö, ¾Ö ÖµÖ Ö ¾Ö ¾Ö ¾Ö Ö Ö êü ÖÖÓ ÖãÃÖÖ üãöó ÖæÞÖÔ ³ÖÖ ü ÖµÖ Ö Ö Ö㌟ÖßÃÖÖšüß ÖÖ Ö ÃÖ»Ö껵ÖÖ ¾Öß ÖÝÖÏÖÆüÛúÖÓ µöö ÆüŸÖÖ µöö ÃÖÓ üõöþööãööšüß ÖÖ. ÖµÖÖêÝÖÖÃÖ µööêýµö ¾Ö Ö¾Ö µöûú ¾ÖÖ üÿöß»ö ÃÖê µö ÃÖÓ²ÖÓ ÖŸÖ µööêýµöÿöê Ö êü Ö ¾ÆüÖ¾ÖêŸÖ. 3. The Petition states as follows: 3.1. Since 2005, the Commission has issued various Orders relating to the Load Shedding Protocol. The last such Order was issued in Case No. 41 of 2012 dated 26 November Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) Order dated 26 June, 2015 in Case No. 121 of 2014: 3.2. In its MYT Petition in Case No. 121 of 2014, MSEDCL had mentioned that there is sufficient availability of electricity in the State. However, during the public consultation process, consumers stated had that, inspite of this, MSEDCL was undertaking load shedding in areas in Groups E, F and G In its response, MSEDCL had confirmed the availability of surplus electricity. It also stated that it would file a Load Shedding Protocol based on Distribution and Collection Losses (DCL, % basis) In its Order dated 26 June, 2015, the Commission had rejected this proposal of MSEDCL and ruled that, in a surplus power scenario, consumers should not be subjected to load shedding. It also clarified that, in case of shortage of power, load shedding should be undertaken only for such period, and as per the approved Load Shedding Protocol. MYT Order dated 3 November, 2016 in Case No. 48 of 2016: MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 2 of 16

3 3.5. In the Compliance of Directives Section of the MYT Order, the Commission has noted MSEDCL s submission that load shedding on all Feeders in the State has been withdrawn The MYT Order dated 3 November 2016 approved energy surplus of 46,558 MU (6644 MW) for FY Consumers of Maharashtra are paying Rs crore towards such surplus capacity Even with such surplus, MSEDCL, vide newspaper notice dated 4 May, 2017, has initiated load shedding of 4,000 MW. The second such notice was issued on 5 May, After paying Capacity Charges towards surplus capacity, implementation of load shedding is unjustified. Also, during March and April, 2017, undeclared load shedding was carried out in semi-urban and rural areas In its MYT Petition, MSEDCL had stated that, in case of availability of surplus power, it needs to back down the contracted generation. However, it has to pay Fixed Charges (or Capacity Charges) to the Generators as per the terms and conditions of the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) irrespective of utilization of the generation capacity. The Commission has accepted the above contentions of MSEDCL. Table 1 - MSEDCL s Submission and demand (as per MYT Petition) FY FY FY FY Particulars Units Total Electricity MW 30,674 33,496 33,979 34,413 Available Back down Capacity MW 6,379 8,961 7,257 6,463 Capacity Charges related to Back down Rs. crore 3,988 4,357 4,027 3,710 Table No. 2. Commission s Approval (As per November, 2016 Order) Particulars Total Projected Backdown/RSD Volume Capacity Charges (fixed charges) for this projects without using electricity Load factor 80% considering Surplus electricity capacity Units FY FY FY FY MU 25,605 46,558 44,653 42,582 Rs. crore 1,152 3,363 3,096 2,520 MW 3,654 6,644 6,371 6,076 MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 3 of 16

4 3.9. Inspite of such surplus capacity and paying Capacity Charges for the same, implementation of load shedding on consumers was not explained by MSEDCL nor was anything published in newspapers On 4 and 5 May, 2017, MSEDCL has published 2 notices in the newspapers. While doing so, certain Orders of the Commission were not followed, as shown below: a. MSEDCL has not clarified why the demand of MW was not met inspite of power availability of 33,496 MW for FY b. Sudden breakdown of various Generating Stations in the State leading to shortage of 3000 MW is not a reliable explanation. c. The increase in power demand of 1000 MW could not be a valid reason as it is obvious that in summer season power demand increases. This should have been factored in while demand forecasting. d. The reason of regular maintenance leading to shortage of 1000 MW is also not satisfactory. Repairs and Maintenance (R&M) works are always pre-planned and hence alternative arrangement is easily possible and is the prime responsibility of the Distribution Licensee. e. The sudden shortfall against power demand could have been met through Power Exchanges and other generating sources. There is no explanation in this regard. f. MSEDCL has stated that D, E, F, G-1, G-2 and G-3 Groups would face load shedding, which is against the principles and protocol of load shedding stipulated by the Commission. g. There was no information, disclosure, details and time-table of load shedding on the website of MSEDCL. h. Provisions relating to wide publicity, declaring time-table for Feeder-wise load shedding, no load shedding on Industrial Feeders, etc. in MSEDCL s Circular No. 46 have not been complied with On MSEDCL s website, nothing was displayed regarding the revised time-table for load shedding on Agricultural Feeders As per MSEDCL s declaration, electricity supply would be available for 8 hours to Agricultural Pumps but electricity is available for only 5, 6 and maximum 7 hours in practice. For instance, in Sangamner Taluka, electricity supply is available for approximately 3 to 4 hours, thus resulting in loss to agriculture and agricultural production. MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 4 of 16

5 Un-declared load shedding in March and April, 2017: MSEDCL declared load shedding on 4 May 2017, but in reality semi-urban and rural areas of Maharashtra were facing load shedding since March, While implementing load shedding in March and April, 2017, MSEDCL has excluded big cities such as Mumbai, Pune, Aurangabad, Nagpur, etc Non-compliance of load shedding Order dated 26 November, 2012: Extra load shedding in Groups G1, G2 and G3 is allowed only when there is demand-supply gap of 4600 to 5000 MW and not in other cases MSEDCL has not updated details of Feeder-wise Distribution Loss and Distribution and Collection Loss on its website since June, MSEDCL cannot change the Load Shedding Protocol without approval of the Commission All these Orders of the Commission have been violated by the MSEDCL In Mumbai, there was a large interruption in electricity on 18 and 21 November, 2010 due to sudden grid failure. To analyse this interruption, the Commission formed a Study Committee with Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay and others. In order to avoid these incidences in future, final report was prepared by the Committee and in June, 2011 it was declared and is available on the Commission s website Similar study should be conducted in respect of MSEDCL s power procurement planning so that instances of load shedding due to poor planning are avoided in future 4. Vide its Reply dated 1 August, 2017, MSEDCL stated that: 4.1. The average demand of MSEDCL from February, 2017 onwards increased to around 18,000 MW and the average peak demand to 18,700 MW. On 29 March 2017, MSEDCL recorded its highest ever demand of MW In May, 2017, this demand remained in the range of MW. During the month, the average peak demand of MSEDCL was around to MW and maximum peak demand was MW. This rise in demand in MW in May, 2017 is 8% to 25% w.r.t. last year and rise in energy (MUs) catered is around 8% to 19% with respect to previous year. MSEDCL has managed to meet the peak demand even MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 5 of 16

6 though there was approx. 19% rise in peak demand w.r.t. last, year except from 1 to 6 May, Although there was sustained rise in demand, generation Availability from April, 2017 onwards and in May, 2017 was reduced from Thermal Generating Units for various reasons: a. The Availability of the Generating Stations was consistently below 85%, i.e. in the range of 59 to 66 % in April 2017 and % in May, 2017 which adversely impacted the load generation balance b. Although Adani Power Maharashtra Ltd. (APML) s 4 x 660 MW Units and RattanIndia Power Ltd. (RPL) s 2 x 270 MW Units were on bar, due to coal shortage around MW from APML and around MW from RIPL generation was less, totaling MW additional shortfall in power supply. Also, some Units are under planned outages. c. Most of the newly commissioned Units of Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. (MSPGCL), which are of high capacity, i.e. 500 MW and 660 MW, have frequent tripping. Tripping of such high capacity Generating Units creates a vacuum in power supply during real-time operations which severely impedes the power supply position of MSEDCL. In such scenarios, for immediate relief MSEDCL is left with the option of excess utilization of Koyna Hydro generation or to implement emergency load shedding. d. Because of the high tripping of 500 and 660 MW newly commissioned Units of MSPGCL and due to sudden reduction in availability from APML and RPL in real time operations, Koyna Hydro generation was utilized more than planned in March and April, MSEDCL s efforts to improve the availability of power to meet the shortfall are as follows: a. In view of high and rising demand scenario, MSEDCL proactively intimated all the Generators for supplying power up to 100% of contracted capacity. MSEDCL had written to MSPGCL, APML and RIPL for supply of power up to the contracted capacity. b. Further, to provide sufficient coal to the Generation Companies for improvement in the availability to meet the rising demand, MSEDCL and the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) proactively communicated to the Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India (GoI) and regularly followed up with Coal India Ltd. (CIL). MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 6 of 16

7 c. To make Generators accountable and to bring them into regular framework for providing continuous, reliable and quality supply, MSEDCL has filed a Petition before the Commission on 6 July, 2017 with the following prayers: 1. To make suitable amendment to Section 44 and 48 of the MERC (Multi Year Tariff) Regulations, 2016 to ensure consistent monthly availability of the thermal generating stations for the purpose of ensuring prudent power supply planning and reliable and quality power supply to consumers in the light of grievances mentioned in this Petition 2. To make suitable amendment to Intra State ABT Order and FBSM Code to include Intra State Generators as State Pool Participant in order that any charges/ losses pertaining to deviations by the generator is borne by the generator; 3. To make suitable amendments in MERC (Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2014 or to frame separate regulations for standard of performance for generation and transmission companies; d. Till the Commission decides that Petition, the Commission may direct Generators to provide power at 75% minimum of their contracted capacity so as to provide a reliable and continuous supply to the consumers e. To meet the peak demand, MSEDCL utilized the Ghatghar Pumped Storage Hydro generation capacity of 2 x 125 MW in April and May, f. MSEDCL has procured 500 MW Round-the-Clock (RTC) 24 x7 power through tender from 7 May, 2017 onward. g. To meet the rising demand in April and May, 2017, MSEDCL had exercised the option of the Banking arrangement with Haryana Power Purchase Centre. In this arrangement, MSEDCL has imported 200 to 400 MW during the day-time in April and May, 2017 which replaced the power from high variable cost Generators. In return, MSEDCL will export 200 to 300 MW during the night in the months from July to September, 2017 which will be supplied by low variable cost Generating Units. h. MSEDCL has procured additional power from the Indian Energy Exchange (IEX) in April and May, 2017.In April, 2017, MSEDCL purchased around MU from Power Exchanges. However, during a few days of May, 2017, i.e. from 3 to 6 May, the bid quantum of sellers was less than the bid quantum of buyers. i. Due to this power market scenario, sufficient quantum of power from Power Exchanges could not be available to MSEDCL on 3 to 6 May, During this MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 7 of 16

8 period, MSEDCL was forced to implement distress load shedding of around 300 MW to 1100 MW for certain periods of the day. j. Hence, MSEDCL has taken all possible efforts to improve power supply in this emergency situation to provide continuous power supply Inspite of all its efforts, due to various issues mentioned above, MSEDCL was forced to implement distress load shedding of 300 MW to 1100 MW from 27 April, 2017 to 6 May, As an interim measure and to avoid emergency load shedding in real time operations, 3-phase availability to Agricultural Load Management (AGLM) Scheme Feeders was reduced from 10/8 hours to 8/8 hours per day w.e.f. 5 May, After improvement in availability, the AGLM timing was restored to the original protocol, i.e. from 8/8 hrs to 10/8hrs per day w.e.f. 20 May, MSEDCL had given wide publicity in the media and newspapers. To improve communication further, from May, 2017, MSEDCL has introduced an additional page on emergency load shedding in the daily power supply position information displayed on its website. Also, MSEDCL has made arrangements on its website for displaying emergency load shedding timings on a particular day, if any. To improve consumer services, MSEDCL is in the process of collecting mobile numbers from consumers to enable it to give information from time to time, in which it is proposed to provide information on supply interruptions, if any, also The contention of MVGS that MSEDCL has implemented around 4000 MW load shedding is wrong and misleading. The shortfall of power during 26 th April to 6 th May, 2017 was around 4000 MW. In anticipation of this situation, MSEDCL has taken all possible measures to reduce the shortfall to avoid emergency load shedding. During this period, MSEDCL implemented distress load shedding of between 300 to 1100 MW. From 7 May, 2017 there was no distress load shedding on account of power availability. 5. At the hearing held on 3 August, 2017: 5.1. MVGS stated that: a. In March and April, 2017, consumers faced power failure and tripping. On 4 th and 5 th May, 2017, MSEDCL declared that there was shortage of 4000 MW and hence load shedding would be implemented in the areas of Groups D, G1, G2 and G3. This violated the Commission s Load Shedding Protocol. The load shedding was continued in June and July, MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 8 of 16

9 b. MSDCL has filed its Reply only on 1 August, 2017, just 2 days before the hearing. Hence, 15 days may be given for filing its Rejoinder. c. The Commission, in its MYT Order dated 26 June, 2015, had stated that load shedding can be implemented only in a scenario of power shortage. In its subsequent MYT Order dated 3 November, 2016, the Commission noted MSEDCL s submission that load shedding on all Feeders has been withdrawn. However, till date, MSEDCL s website is displaying only its earlier Circulars No. 46, 47 and 48 for implementation of load shedding. d. The Commission in its MYT Order dated 3 November, 2016 has approved MU (6644MW) as surplus contracted capacity for FY , for which the consumers are paying Rs crore as fixed Capacity Charge through Tariff. e. Inspite of such surplus energy approved by the Commission, on 4 th and 5 th May, 2017 MSEDCL declared shortage of 4000 MW and started load shedding in Groups D, G1, G2 and G3. Although MSEDCL has given wide publicity to such load shedding, implementing load shedding in Groups G1, G2 and G3 when the shortage is 4000 MW is against the Commission s Order dated 26 November, 2012 which stipulated that load shedding in Groups G1, G2 and G3 can be implemented only in Scenario V, i.e. when demand-supply gap is between 4600 to 5000 MW. f. MSEDCL is not uploading Feeder-wise losses and load shedding details on its website. Further, there is no Circular on MSEDCL s website relating to the load shedding carried out from 26 April to 7 May, g. Various instances of load shedding / interruptions in different areas (including Industrial Feeders) were communicated to MSEDCL vide s dated 8 May and 19 June, 2017 for necessary action, but no reply has been received. As per the Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre (MSLDC) Report, there is no load shedding after 6 May, However, due to local faults, consumers have experienced interruptions in power supply. h. MSEDCL has incurred around Rs. 50,000 crore on infrastructure development in the last 17 years, but consumers are still facing an average of 2 hours of interruptions per day. Such interruptions are causing a revenue loss of around Rs crore per interruption hour to MSEDCL, which would be passed on to consumers through tariff. When there is availability of surplus power, such revenue loss on account of interruptions is not justifiable. i. This Petition is not restricted to load shedding. It also includes issues of nonsupply of power due to local faults and interruptions. MVGS has provided details of interruptions experienced at different locations in the State. MSEDCL should MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 9 of 16

10 be instructed to inquire into the causes of such interruptions and take corrective action Dr. Ashok Pendse on behalf of Thane-Belapur Industries Association (TBIA), an Authorised Consumer Representative, stated that: a. As per MSLDC data, from 2 May to 6 May, 2017, 1125 MW was the maximum load shedding. There were instances of load shedding of 120 MW during night off-peak period also. b. During April, 2017, MSEDCL was able to meet the peak demand of MW. In May, 2017, demand never crossed MW. Under such circumstances, forced load shedding of 1125 MW, especially when 4000 MW of surplus capacity was available, needs to be scrutinized carefully. c. This may be due to various reasons such as non-availability of power from Koyna due to full utilization of the water quota in April itself, banking of power with other States, coal shortage, frequent tripping of newly commissioned Units of MSPGCL, etc. d. MSEDCL needs to introspect to find out what went wrong in its planning which led to load shedding of around 1125 MW when the Commission had approved surplus power capacity. e. Consumers are paying for the surplus power capacity through Tariff. Inspite of that, consumers have suffered load shedding of 1125 MW. Hence MSEDCL should refund Rs. 58 crore towards the surplus Capacity Charges for the month of May, 2017 through the Fuel Adjustment Charge (FAC) mechanism. f. It is a matter of investigation as to how the generation of contracted Independent Power Producers (IPPs) reduced. The reason cited of coal shortages need to be looked into Shri Raghunath Kaparthi for Chamber of Marathwada Industries and Agriculture (CMIA), an Authorised Consumer Representative, stated that: a. Distribution and Collection Loss of Agricultural Feeders is high because of low collection efficiency and not on account of technical loss. MSEDCL should make efforts to increase the collection efficiency of Agricultural consumers. MSEDCL should not impose load shedding on Agricultural Feeders. b. Earlier, the Commission had imposed a Transmission and Distribution (T&D) Loss Charge based on the T&D loss of the area. The Bombay High Court had upheld this. On similar lines, the Commission should impose load shedding on MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 10 of 16

11 Feeders having 50% or more losses as penal action. The Commission observed that it had made it clear that load shedding per se cannot be undertaken as a penal action when adequate power is available. Discrimination between areas on the basis of loss levels, etc. has been mandated only while implementing load shedding during power shortage MSEDCL made a presentation providing factual details of the power supply and availability situation during the relevant period. MSEDCL stated that: a. The prayers in the Petition relate only to load shedding issues, and hence it should be restricted to load shedding only. Although the issues relating to interruptions are important, they have to be dealt with separately. b. During April and May, 2017, MSEDCL experienced a 25% increase in demand, and in terms of energy it was 16%. When consumer demand was increasing, there was also a reduction in power availability, which led to emergency load shedding. c. Although there was no reduction in Availability from Central Sector Generating Stations, the Availability of MSPGCL s Stations and IPPs reduced considerably, and a few Units of APML and RPL were under shut down on account of coal shortage. Further, in order to stabilize the Grid operation on account of frequent tripping of newly commissioned Units of MSPGCL, utilization of Koyna water increased, which resulted in full utilization of the allocated quota of water in April, 2017 itself. Hence, power from the Koyna Hydro Generating Plant was not available during May, All these factors resulted in lower Availability of generation. d. MSEDCL took various steps to mitigate this situation. In April, 2017, except for MSPGCL s Nashik Units, all contracted Generators were asked to remain available. In May, 2017, Nashik was also asked to remain available. When generation Availability started reducing, MSEDCL wrote several letters to the Generators for increasing it. Further, it procured power from Power Exchanges and also through short term bi-lateral contracts via the e-bidding portal. e. MSEDCL has also filed a separate Petition for making Generators Pool Participants in the Availability-based Tariff (ABT) mechanism, mandating a certain minimum Availability of Generators in each month and other related issues. f. The load shedding imposed during 27 April to 6 May, 2017 was distress load shedding required on account of reduction in Availability of contracted Generation coupled with increased demand. MSEDCL made all efforts to restore the situation and, from 7 May, 2017, there is no load shedding. MSEDCL has not violated any Order of the Commission. MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 11 of 16

12 5.5. The Commission allowed 15 days to MVGS for its Rejoinder. TBIA would file its written submission within a week. 6. In its Rejoinder dated 10 August, 2017, MVGS stated as follows: 6.1. MSEDCL had itself agreed that the effective available capacity is 30,255 MW and sufficient to supply power to all the consumers That Agricultural consumption increased in April and May, 2017 is a wrong statement made by MSEDCL considering the following: a. The Rabi season ends by March every year. In April and May, only a few crops such as sugarcane, banana, turmeric etc. use water. The area under cultivation of such crops is only around 10% to 15%. b. Maximum demand of MW in May 2017 was not much higher than the peak demand in earlier months. c. MSEDCL has catered to a maximum demand of MW in March 2017 and MW in April Hence, the issue is not increase in demand. It is lack of proper planning and load management MSEDCL has stated that APML 660 MW and RPL 810 MW (total 1470 MW) was under shutdown due to coal shortage. However, the letter of APML annexed to MSEDCL s submission has raised some payment issues. Hence, non-payment may be the issue. This non-availability of IPPs and its real reasons require to be checked properly MSPGCL s Availability reduced by 25% within 4 days, i.e. from 14 April to 18 April. Availability of IPPs and MSPGCL has reduced at the same time. It cannot be a coincidence. The reasons need to be properly verified Load Shedding was also implemented in March and April, 2017, which is a violation of Commission s directions With reference to MSEDCL s Petition seeking directions to Generators for consistent power Availability, it is suggested that 85% to 90% Availability must be made compulsory Based on MSLDC s data and MSEDCL s own submission, it is proved that load shedding was implemented during March, 2017 to May, On 30 March and 5 MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 12 of 16

13 April, 2017, MSEDCL has recorded the highest peak demand of MW and MW, respectively. Hence, MSEDCL, with its experience of 57 years, was duty bound to prepare itself for demand which would have come upto 15 th June. MSEDCL has failed to do so Though there was no declared load shedding in most days of March, April and May, and no load shedding in June and July, the data from the field shows that consumers were faced with power failure/ tripping/ break downs / interruptions. This is a serious issue as such interruptions are observed in 25 places in 20 Districts of the State Technically, there is a difference between load shedding and interruptions. Load shedding includes planned load shedding due to shortage or emergency / distress load shedding due to contingencies; whereas power failure includes failures, interruptions, tripping, breakdown or shutdown due to various local reasons or due to old or outdated infrastructure. However, the impact of both on consumers is same, i.e. no power supply Such interruptions are not only causing huge financial loss (Rs crore for 1hour s average interruption) to MSEDCL but also causing loss to consumers due to failure of electrical equipment and loss of studying hours of students Reduction in power failure will be beneficial to all, i.e. MSEDCL, consumers and the State. Actual field level problems should be scrutinized and necessary solutions should be advised. Such analysis should be undertaken by an independent thirdparty Technical Committee. Hence, the Commission is requested to appoint such Committee for undertaking this analysis In the last 17 years, MSEDCL has incurred around Rs. 50,000 crore on capital expenditure for strengthening of infrastructure, but still the quality of power supply is very poor. Hence, it is necessary that the infrastructure of MSEDCL be surveyed for analyzing and identifying the problems. MSEDCL has failed to undertake periodic maintenance, which leads to doubling the period of interruptions in last 3 to 4 years. Commission s Analysis and Ruling 7. MVGS main contention is that MSEDCL has violated the Commission s Load Shedding Protocol while undertaking Load Shedding, i.e. in April and May, 2017 as admitted by MSEDC:. According to MVGS, although the demand-supply gap was upto 4000 MW, MSEDCL has implemented Scenario V of the Load Shedding Protocol, which is applicable only when there is a higher shortfall of MW. 8. In its Order dated 26 November, 2012 in Case No. 41 of 2012, the Commission had stated as follows: MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 13 of 16

14 The Commission vide Order dated 28 November, 2008 in Case Nos. 77 and 78 of 2008 had approved six scenarios of load shedding for various levels of demand supply gap for MSEDCL. The scenario I of load shedding pertains to the load relief of MW, which was the scenario for minimum demand supply gap. Scenario II, III, IV, V and VI were built based on increasing scenarios of demand supply gap, with maximum load relief of MW for scenario VI. MSEDCL was directed to operate strictly within the limits defined under the different scenarios On analysing the demand supply scenario for MSEDCL since year 2005, the Commission noticed that the demand submitted by MSEDCL is not the total unrestricted demand. The Commission verified from MSEDCL that the information on average peak demand submitted by it was post consideration of load relief from AGLM schemes The Commission observed that in the last few years, there has been a reduction of demand supply gap for MSEDCL; due to increased availability of supply as well as load relief due to implementation of AGLM schemes. The AGLM relief for MSEDCL has increased from 467 MW in FY to 3200 MW in the month of September The present demand-supply gap submitted by MSEDCL was around 1500 MW for the period from April up to September Without the support of AGLM schemes, the demandsupply gap of MSEDCL would have been in the range of 4600 MW to 5000 MW. For such a demand-supply gap, scenario V is applicable for MSEDCL as per the Commission s Order dated 28 November, 2008 in Case Nos. 77 and 78 of The extent of load shedding now undertaken by MSEDCL is also without considering the load relief from the AGLM Schemes referred to in the 2012 Order. The Load Shedding Protocol of November, 2008 was designed at a time when there was a practice of including the load relief obtained from AGLM Schemes. In its Daily System Report, MSLDC was publishing details of hourly load shedding inclusive of such load relief. From March, 2012 onwards, however, the details of load shedding on the MSLDC website exclude the load relief from AGLM Schemes. In the present case, although there was a shortfall of upto 4000 MW, the actual load shedding was between 300 to 1100 MW. The 2012 Order quoted above records that load relief from AGLM Schemes was around 3200 MW in September, With the substantial increase in Agricultural consumers over the last 4 years, the load relief from these Schemes would now be higher. Thus, without the support of AGLM Schemes, the demand-supply gap of MSEDCL in April and May, 2017 is likely to have been in the range of 4600 MW to 5000 MW, to which Scenario V of the Load Shedding Protocol is applicable. MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 14 of 16

15 10. Although MSEDCL s application of Scenario V seems, therefore, to be reasonable, the absence of details of load relief from AGLM Schemes in the public domain would always be problematic for verifying whether the correct Scenario of the Load Shedding Protocol is being applied or not. Moreover, details of such load relief, which is around 20% of the State s peak demand, are also important for power system planning. Hence, the Commission directs MSLDC to appropriately include the load relief from AGLM schemes in its Daily System Report on its website, separately if not as associated with load shedding. MSEDCL should provide all details in this regard to MSLDC. 11. The Commission observes that, although Scenario V requires load shedding in all areas, i.e. Groups A to G 3, MSEDCL has undertaken it in high-loss areas first and then, if required, in low-loss areas as well. Although this is not strictly in accordance with the principles of the Load Shedding Protocol, i.e. equitable distribution of shortage in this Scenario, the Commission notes that it was for a limited period from 27 April to 6 May, 2017 and in the nature of distress Load Shedding mainly because of shortfall in supply by the contracted Generators, with regard to which MSEDCL was in touch with them and with CIL. The actual load shedding in those days (excluding load relief from AGLM Schemes) varied from 300 MW to 1100 MW. MSEDCL had publicized the distress load shedding, and provided information on the supply position and load shedding timings, if any, on its website. Hence, the Commission is not inclined to penalize MSEDCL s approach to load shedding for this short and transient period in these circumstances, However, even so, MSEDCL must be diligent to avoid deviations from the principles. 12. It has been suggested that, since consumers are paying for the surplus contracted power capacity through tariffs but have faced load shedding nevertheless, MSEDCL should refund these amounts for May, 2017 through the FAC mechanism. The Commission observes that, since the fixed cost payable to Generators is linked to their normative Availability, its payment is reduced proportionately if the cumulative normative Availability is not maintained. Such reduction in the fixed cost payable to Generators is being passed on to consumers through the FAC mechanism. 13. MVGS has also raised the issue of power interruptions. Such interruptions and load shedding are technically different terms, although the effect of both is non-supply of power to consumers. Beside recourse to other legal options, consumers are entitled to compensation for interruptions under the Standards of Performance Regulations. MSEDCL also incurs a large financial loss in terms of revenues and costs. Hence, it is in the interest of MSEDCL to take steps for reducing such interruptions. Such interruptions even when sufficient power is contracted and available, and also supply quality issues, arise from managerial and/or technical issues at different levels. While some of these issues may require capital investment and take time, MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 15 of 16

16 some local area corrections would be simpler. Monitoring systems from the local level upwards are increasingly available with MSEDCL, and some area-wise performance is also tracked by others (such as by Prayas (Energy Group) under its Electricity Supply Monitoring Initiative). Quicker results may be possible if MSEDCL is able to monitor and address these simpler area issues more systematically. Apart from its own in-house efforts, MSEDCL should also interact on these issues with other organizations and agencies which could contribute to these being addressed and minimized sooner and more systematically. The Petition of Maharashtra Veej Grahak Sanghatana in Case No. 88 of 2017 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member MERC Order Case No.88 of 2017 Page 16 of 16