Case No. 88 of Coram. Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri Deepak Lad, Member. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Shri. A.V.

Transcription

1 Before the MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai Tel /65/69 Fax Website: / www. merc.gov.in Case No. 88 of 2016 In the matter of Petition of Tata Motors Ltd. regarding non-compliance of Distribution Open Access Regulations, 2005 and 2014 and Commission s Order dated in Case Nos. 8, 18, 20 and 33 of 2012 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Coram Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member Shri Deepak Lad, Member Tata Motors Ltd. Petitioner V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Respondent Appearance: For the Petitioner For the Respondent : Smt. Dipali Sheth (Adv) : Shri. Ashish Singh (Adv) Shri. A.V. Bute ORDER Dated: 18 December, 2017 M/s Tata Motors Ltd. (TML), Pimpri, Pune has filed a Petition on 24 June, 2016, citing Sections 42, 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 and the MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations ( DOA Regulations ), 2005 and 2014, regarding non-compliance by MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 1 of 16

2 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the DOA Regulations and the Commission s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case Nos.8, 18, 20 and 33 of TML s prayers are as follows: (a) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to forthwith grant Open Access renewal to the Petitioners for the months from April 2015-October 2015 as per the application dated November 15, 2014; (b) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to not withhold open access permissions in future in unjustified and arbitrary manner; (c) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to direct the Respondent to issue the credit notes to the Petitioner for energy injected till date and continue to issue the same in timely manner; (d) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to forthwith issue REC pro-forma and energy injection report based on joint meter reading; (e) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to order and direct Respondent to compensate the Petitioner for RECs lapsed on account of unjustly withholding the grant of Open Access renewals in F.Y ; (f) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to order and direct Respondent to direct Respondent to refund the processing fees wrongly collected thrice from the Petitioner instead of collecting one time; (g) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to refer the matter to the Hon ble High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents directors and officers; (h) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to order Interim and Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) to (d) above; (i) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to award cost for these proceedings against Respondent and in favour of the Petitioner. (j) This Hon ble Commission be pleased to pass such other order(s) as this Hon ble Commission may deem just in the present case. 3. The Petition states as follows: (1) TML is engaged in manufacturing and sale of automotive vehicles, components and parts. It has its manufacturing facility at Pimpri, Pune. TML is a consumer of MSEDCL, with a contracted capacity of kva and connected load of kw. (2) TML is also operating wind-based generating units in Maharashtra, with a total installed capacity of MW. TML is a captive Open Access (OA) consumer of this wind farm since MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 2 of 16

3 (3) The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) (Installation and Operation of Meters) Regulations, 2006 ( CEA Metering Regulations ) deals with meters installed and to be installed by Generating Companies and Licensees engaged in generation, transmission, trading, distribution and supply of electricity to all categories of consumers. (4) On 9 February, 2010, a joint meeting was held between TML, MSEDCL and Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MSETCL) for carrying out the installation of Apex Metering to upgrade the metering of TML. This conversion included replacement of healthy 0.2 Class 220 kv Current Transformers (CTs), modification of support structure of CTs, and earthing and jumpering arrangements. Specifications of Apex Meter and CTs were selected and directed by MSEDCL. It was also decided that TML will arrange for 2 core 4 sq.mm. multi-strand copper cables for 9 CTs from each CT secondary terminal box to the meter room. Further, the Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, Pune would test the commissioning of the new 220 KV CTs with the Summation Meter (Apex Meter). Al the work would be planned after confirmation by TML of its cable arrangement, and done in 2-3 days. (5) In pursuance of the above, MSEDCL selected and arranged new 0.2 class CTs and 0.2s class Special Energy Meter (SEM). The works were completed by MSEDCL. Thereafter, on 4 May, 2011, MSEDCL filed Form NC-1 for connection checking of HT consumers. MSEDCL also filed a replacement report of TML s SEM at Pimpri. Both the manufacturer and supplier of the Apex Meter have confirmed that the Apex Meter had Availability-based Tariff (ABT) features. (6) Thereafter, vide itsorder dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No.8, 18, 20 and 33 of 2012, the Commission gave 6 months to MSEDCL to develop a pilot case for installation of SEM at both the generation and consumption ends and submit its findings to the Commission. (7) Vide letter dated 12 February, 2013, TML sought OA permission for 7.35 MW (Developer 4057) and 1 MW (Developer 1005) power for self-use of wind energy from MSEDCL at its Pimpri Plant. On 3 April, 2013, MSEDCL granted OA permissions to TML for self-use for FY Developers 4057 and (8) Again, vide its letter dated 22 February, 2013, TML sought OA permission for 5.25 MW (Developer 4067), 7.35 MW (Developer 4028) and 1 MW (Developer 1002) for self-use of wind energy at its Pimpri Plant. Thus, a total of MW was applied for OA by TML considering its applications dated 12 and 22 February, On 3 April, 2013, granted OA permission to TML for self-use for the entire period of FY MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 3 of 16

4 (9) Pursuant to the Commission s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No. 8, 18, 20 and 33 of 2012, MSEDCL issued a Commercial Circular No. 194 dated 9 April, 2013 which contained the procedure for OA for renewable energy (RE) sources. The Circular also provided for installation of SEM by OA consumers not later than 3 July, 2013 (within 6 months of the Order). (10) Vide its letter dated May 24, 2013, MSEDCL also called upon TML, being an OA consumer, to install SEM as per Circular 194 by 3 July, 2013, and that the cost of installation will have to be borne by TML. (11) Vide letter dated 4 June, 2013, TML replied that SEM has been installed with the specification of 15 minute time block, data storage and online communication, as per the SEM metering system requirement in accordance with the DOA Regulations, The SEM was installed by MSEDCL in 2011 keeping in mind the relevant provisions of those Regulations. (12) TML sought OA permissions for FY vide its applications dated 3 February, 2014, as follows: Sr.No. Application date Developer No. Capacity Period 1. February 3, MW FY February 3, MW FY February 3, MW FY February 3, MW FY February 3, MW FY (13) On 30 April, 2014, MSEDCL granted OA permission for 7.35 MW power for self-use as sought by TML. (14) Further, vide letter dated 7 July, 2014, MSEDCL s Ganeshkhind (Pune) Office wrote internally to Superintending Engineer (SE), Testing and Quality Assurance (TQA), Rastapeth (Pune) Office that the SEM connected to the billing meter of TML has a Maximum Demand integration of 30 minutes, whereas the requirement was to install the SEM at the injection and withdrawal points with active energy recording at every 15 minutes. Vide letter dated 16 October, 2014, SE (Testing Division), MSEDCL stated that the metering arrangement is not compatible with the SEM installed by TML, and that the Load Survey data in the meter is of 30 minutes and the Maximum Demand integration is also of 30 minutes. However, this internal correspondence conveying the installation of incorrect SEM was made available to TML only vide MSEDCL s letter dated 29 January, MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 4 of 16

5 (15) Thereafter, vide letter dated 15 November, 2014, TML applied for renewal of OA permission for FY for sourcing power from its five wind farms. (16) On 9 December, 2014, TML received the bill for its Pimpri Plant for the month of November, MSEDCL levied certain charges and had not credited the wind power injected to the extent of 1,33,257 units. Vide letter dated 12 December, 2014, TML raised two issues, of which one was the absence of credits for 1,33,257 units of its Supa Wind Project in November, TML requested that this be adjusted in its bill of December, However, MSEDCL did not give credit for the wind power injected by TML despite valid OA permission, nor has it provided any explanation. (17) In its bill for the month of December, 2014 also, no credit was given for the wind power generated in the months of October and November, 2014 to the extent of 22,04,298 units. Therefore, TML again vide letter dated 10 January, 2015 asked MSEDCL to give adjustments for this injected wind power. (18) Vide its letter dated 21 January, 2015, MSEDCL stated that TML s Application for Medium/Long Term OA for self-use made on 15 November, 2014 had certain discrepancies, which TML was requested to comply with. (19) On 29 January, 2015, TML received a copy of an internal communication between MSEDCL Officers pertaining to the SEM. The letter refers to correspondence since July, 2014 regarding the metering of TML. It stated that Load Survey data in the meter and the Maximum Demand integration period is of 30 minutes, and that the accuracy of CTs should be 0.2S instead of the existing 0.2. It also stated that the Check Meter is provided on the incoming line with a CT ratio of 1200/1A; and that the MSEDCL Head Office had earlier sanctioned OA permission for FY , but TML has not fulfilled the metering criteria. The letter seeks guidance of the Head Office on how to deal with the existing OA permission and on the benefits earlier provided to TML pursuant to it. TML was neither kept in the loop nor informed of the reasons for not furnishing credit of wind power injected till 29 January, Assuming but not admitting that there was a deficiency in the metering, it was the duty of MSEDCL to communicate it to TML rather than unilaterally not providing credit. MSEDCL did not do so for 5 months even though it had known of it since July, Had TML been informed earlier, it would have taken steps to comply even with the unreasonable demands of MSEDCL. In fact, it is only at the instance of MSEDCL that TML had incurred costs for replacement of healthy CTs as well as installation of SEMs. (20) Vide letter dated 9 February, 2015, TML replied to this letter and clarified the facts regarding the existing SEM. The metering system was upgraded in 2010 by MSEDCL and TML had paid the cost. At the instance of MSEDCL, the existing CTs, which MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 5 of 16

6 were healthy, were replaced with new CTs of 0.2 class. The Commission had only asked for installation of SEM and not for replacement of healthy CTs and Potential Transformers (PTs) as the CEA Metering Regulations, 2006 do not require replacement of healthy CTs and PTs. The installation requirements of the consumer meter is under the control of MSEDCL with reference to the CEA Metering Regulations. TML also communicated that there is no requirement of Check Meter under the DOA Regulations, 2005 or Circular 194 or the Order of the Commission. (21) Thereafter, inspection was conducted by MSEDCL on 6 February, 2015 for evaluating the metering at TML s premises following which, vide letter dated 16 February, 2015, its field officials requested its Testing Department to approve a few changes suggested. The letter states that the existing Summation Meter installed on 18 July, 2011 had HT Time of the Day (ToD) Meter parameters with 30 minutes Load Survey and Demand integration period with 0.2S class accuracy. (22) Vide its letter dated 19 February, 2015, TML stated and requested as follows: a. reprogramming of the SEM from 30 to 15 minute time block should be done without stopping the wind power credits, at TML s cost; b. the Commission s Order dated 3 January, 2013 and CEA Metering Regulations, 2006 do not require the replacement of existing healthy CTs and PTs. TML also sought waiver of installation of Check Meter due to the space constraints which were observed at the time of inspection, and stated that it is not mandatory as per the DOA Regulations, 2005 or the Commission s Order dated January 3, (23) Vide letter dated 20 February, 2015, TML again requested early reinstatement of its wind power credits withheld since November, It also sought approval of OA permission for at least 6 months to enable TML to take corrective action as per letter dated February 19, (24) Vide letter dated 20 March, 2015, TML stated to MSEDCL that the requirement of submitting OA applications 5 months before is not mandatory for an existing OA consumer, such as TML, availing OA from MSEDCL for 7 years without a gap since TML also requested OA permission for 3 years from April, 2015 to March, 2018 for the full term of Medium Term OA (MTOA). TML has installed SEM prior to 3 July, 2013 [within the 6 months stipulated in the Commission s Order] and has hence complied with the applicable laws. The reprogramming, if required, needs to be carried out by MSEDCL and the costs will be borne by TML. TML also submitted that, although the existing CT and PTs are healthy and were replaced earlier by MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 6 of 16

7 MSEDCL in 2011, if MSEDCL still insists TML agrees to bear the costs for replacement of CTs and MSEDCL should undertake the replacement. (25) Vide letter dated 14 May, 2015, MSEDCL reiterated the requirement of reprogramming of existing SEM (Summation Meter) be done for 15 minutes Load Survey data and replacement of 0.2 class CTs at TML s cost. It waived the requirement of installation of additional Check Metering with independent CTs and PTs but directed installation of Apex Meter of the same specification as the main meter as a Check Meter with the same CTs and PTs at the cost of TML. (26) On 2 June, 2015, TML received a copy of another internal communication between the officers of MSEDCL pertaining to the SEM for OA permission, dated 21 May, It stated that approval from the Testing Department for installation of SEM has been granted, but requested the Testing Department to provide charges and arrangements for reprogramming of the existing summator for 15 minutes Load Survey data with ABT features. (27) In the response dated 26 May, 2015, it was informed that approval was accorded for replacement of CTs and reprogramming of SEM, and the specification of the Check Meter and CTs was provided. (28) Vide letter dated 17 June, 2015, MSEDCL provided an estimate to TML for installation of Apex Meters as per the terms and conditions. Vide two further letters, both dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL informed TML that its pending credit adjustment from 1 November, 2014 to 31 March, 2015 has been released. However, renewal of OA permission for FY with the existing energy meter of 30 minutes time block was declined. (29) Vide its letter dated 6 August, 2015 to SE (TQA Circle), Pune Division, TML requested factory inspection at Secure Meters Ltd., and vide letter dated 18 August, 2015 requested expeditious renewal of OA permission for FY (30) On 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it has procured Secure make SEM with ABT features and 9 new 0.2S class CTs. It also stated that testing of this meter at the lab of MSEDCL has been completed and the new SEM is ready for installation. TML requested installation of this SEM at the site. (31) Thereafter, on 30 October, 2015, TML applied for renewal of MTOA from FY to FY for 100% captive consumption along with processing fees. However, vide dated 4 November, 2015, MSEDCL rejected the applications stating that the SEM was not installed at the drawal point and that all the requirements MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 7 of 16

8 for installation had not been complied with, and hence the applications were rejected. TML has now received Short Term Open Access (STOA) permissions for April and May, 2016 and is awaiting MTOA permissions for the period from 1 June, 2016 till 31 March, (32) Vide letter dated 6 November, 2015, TML confirmed that the existing Summation Meter (SEM) at the 220 KV switchyard of the Pimpri, Pune plant is removed and replaced by a new 3-feeder SEM as per the approved specifications. TML also requested to MSEDCL to send the old SEM summation type ABT meter for reprogramming. (33) Thereafter, a meeting was held on 7 November, 2015 between MSEDCL (Testing Division) and TML recording the replacement of Secure make Apex Meter (SEM) at the 220 KV Switchyard. (34) Vide letter dated 9 November, 2015, TML again requested MSEDCL to issue the renewed OA permissions for 100% captive use of wind generation for FY (w.e.f. 1 April, 2015) and submitted the confirmatory evidence of installation of new SEM, and to send the old SEM to the Testing Division for reprogramming. (35) However, inspite of this, MSEDCL vide letter dated 19 November, 2015 rejected TML s application for MTOA from FY to FY for self-use and purchase of wind energy from third party on the grounds that sourcing of power from multiple sources is not permissible under the DOA Regulations, 2014, and that SEM with required specifications is not yet installed at the drawal point. MSEDCL further requested TML to apply afresh and choose MTOA for utilizing the wind power generation. (36) On the same day, i.e. 19 November, 2015, MSEDCL officials wrote to its Testing Department requesting inspection of Secure make Apex summation type Meter (the old SEM) of TML after its reprogramming for ABT features at the manufacturer s works. The testing may be carried out as per the procedure at the manufacturer s works and ensure that the meter is AMR compatible. Vide letter dated 21 November, 2015, they requested the Testing Department to be present for inspecting/testing of Mehru make 220 kv metering CTs at its factory at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan, and that the inspection may be jointly carried out with MSETCL. (37) Vide dated 19 November, 2015, TML stated that, as sought by MSEDCL, it had submitted all the additional documents on 20 March, 2015 for issue of OA permission for 100% captive use of wind power in FY TML again requested MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 8 of 16

9 MSEDCL to issue OA permission to it for 100% Captive use of wind power for selfuse for FY with effect from 1 April, (38) Vide letter dated 8 December, 2015, TML sought OA permission for 100% captive use of wind power also from FY to FY TML stated that it had been following up continuously with MSEDCL for OA permissions and that all the requirements have been complied with. (39) Thereafter, vide letter dated 17 December, 2015, TML re-submitted fresh applications for MTOA permission for self-use, i.e. 100% captive consumption. MSEDCL has not replied, and later responded verbally on 15 March, 2016 directing TML to re-submit one-time processing fee to enable it to grant MTOA from 1 June, 2016, i.e. 5 months after the re-submission of applications. MSEDCL also directed TML to submit STOA applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 by paying one time processing fees. (40) In its dated 9 March, 2015, MSEDCL had taken cognizance of the fact that the applications as per the DOA Regulations, 2014 for the first financial year could not be made in the specified time frame for FY In its Reply dated 15 November, 2016, MSEDCL has stated that: (1) The present Petition was filed by TML on 22 June, 2016 for an alleged disputed period of April to November, 2015 without any explanation on the issue of delay. (2) The Supreme Court, in its Judgment dated 22 February, 1999 in Civil Appeal No of 1998 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Versus Time Pharma) has held that there was a delay of 360 days in preferring the appeal without any explanation and, therefore, dismissed the Appeal dismissed as barred by time. In its Judgment dated 14 February, 2000 in Review Petition (c) No. 91 of 2000 in Civil Appeal (c) No of 1997 (Union of India and Others Versus Mohd. Nayyar Khalil and Others) had categorically held that 690 days delay in the absence of satisfactory explanation rendered the Petition liable to be dismissed (3) The period of alleged denial of OA for captive use being for the period April, 2015 to November, 2015, it is governed by the DOA Regulations, (4) SEM Meters which are a pre-requisite for grant of OA have to be installed by the consumer. (5) Vide letter dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL told TML that the OA permission for FY with the existing SEM meter with 30 minute time slot-wise energy data cannot be considered as it was not in line with the DOA Regulations, MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 9 of 16

10 (6) Thereafter, vide dated 4 November, 2015 MSEDCL again informed TML that the OA permissions cannot be granted as the metering arrangement was not in line with the DOA Regulations, (7) Vide its Order dated 6 April, 2016 in Case No. 129 of 2014, the Commission has held that every Connector shall install or have installed a correct meter in accordance with the Regulations made by CEA under Section 55 of the EA, (8) TML was very well aware about the requirement of installation of SEM Meter which is in line with the DOA Regulations, This was made known to TML vide letters issued by MSEDCL. TML cannot now seek retrospective adjustment for its own default. Injection of energy into the grid by TML is without any consent or permission by MSEDCL. If TML has chosen to still inject energy into the grid, it has done so at its own risk and cost for which it is solely liable. 5. At the hearing held on 17 November, 2016, TML and MSEDCL reiterated their respective submissions. (1) TML stated that (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) TML is a Captive OA Consumer since On 15 November, 2014, TML submitted applications for renewal of OA permissions for the period from April, 2015 to March, On 29 January, 2015, TML received an internal communication between the officers of MSEDCL in which it was stated that Load Survey data and Maximum Demand integration period were of 30 minutes. Vide its letter dated 9 February, 2015, TML wrote to MSEDCL stating that the existing SEMs are in accordance with the DOA Regulations, 2005 and MSEDCL Circular No. 194, and that the SEMs have the option for reconfiguration to 15 minute time blocks. TML requested MSEDCL to accordingly reinstate the adjustment of wind energy credits in its monthly energy bills. Vide letter dated 19 February, 2015, TML requested that reprogramming of the SEM from 30 minute time block to 15 minute time block should be done without stopping the wind power credits, and undertook to pay the charges. Vide letter dated 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it has procured Secure make SEM with ABT features and 9 new 0.2S class CTs, and that testing of this meter at the lab of MSEDCL has been completed and MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 10 of 16

11 the new SEM is ready for installation. Therefore, TML requested arrangement of installation of this SEM at the site. (vi) On 30 October, 2015, TML applied for renewal of MTOA from FY to FY for 100% captive consumption. However, vide dated 4 November, 2015, MSEDCL rejected the applications stating that SEM was not installed at the drawal point and all the requirements necessary for installation have not been complied with. (vii) Vide its letter dated 6 November, 2015, TML confirmed that the existing Summation Meter (SEM) at the 220 KV switchyard of its Pimpri, Pune Plant is removed and replaced by a new 3-feeder Summation Meter as per the approved specifications. TML also requested MSEDCL to send the old SEM for reprogramming. (2) MSEDCL stated that: (i) (ii) The Petition was filed on 22 June, 2016, for an alleged disputed period of April, 2015 to November, 2015, without explanation for the delay and laches. Vide letter dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL had, though belatedly, communicated to TML that the OA permission for FY with the existing SEM with 30 minute time slot cannot be considered as it is not in line with the DOA Regulations, TML was very well aware about the requirement of installation of SEM in line with the DOA Regulations, In its Rejoinder dated 18 November, 2016, TML stated that: (1) The Petition is filed within a period of 3 years. There is no prescribed limitation period in the EA, Therefore, the general statute of limitation shall apply, which is the Limitation Act, Part X of the Limitation Act stipulates that the period for filing a suit/petition is 3 years from when the right to sue accrues. TML s right to claim/sue arose in August, 2015 when MSEDCL denied OA, and the Petition is filed within 3 years, i.e. on June 24, 2016, Hence, it is not barred by the Limitation Act. (2) The main reason why TML approached the Commission only in June, 2016 was that it was trying to resolve the issue amicably and on good terms with MSEDCL. The series of correspondence between TML and MSEDCL annexed to the Petition substantiates that TML was continuously following up with MSEDCL. (3) SEM was required to be installed as per the DOA Regulations, 2005 read with the Commission s Order dated 3 January, TML pro-actively took steps and had got the SEM installed in TML had provided the complete sequence of steps taken by it to comply with that Order of the Commission. TML also once again MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 11 of 16

12 communicated this fact to MSEDCL vide its letter dated June 04, 2013, stating that the SEM had been installed. (4) MSEDCL is cherry picking in replying to the Petition. The Petition details the entire correspondence between TML and MSEDCL pertaining to the OA applications as well as the SEM. Although there was some internal correspondence on the 30 minute recording between MSEDCL s offices, it was communicated to TML only on 29 January, Despite TML s request on 9 February, 2015 to re-programme/ recalibrate the SEM, MSEDCL failed to do so. The SEM was installed way back in However, re-programming/ recalibration was required to be done by MSEDCL. at the cost of TML to which it had agreed. (5) The dated 4 November, 2015 pertains to MTOA from FY to whereas the present Petition deals with wrongful denial of OA for the months of April to November, (6) The wind power Plants of TML are on must run basis and hence cannot be backed down. MSEDCL seems to have misunderstood the facts as TML is not seeking retrospective adjustment due to its default. Rather, this is a classic case of abuse of monopoly position by MSEDCL. TML is among the few companies which took proactive steps to install SEM before the deadline of 3 July, 2013 as per the Order of the Commission. It is evident that TML had a SEM as it was granted OA permissions for FY as well as FY by MSEDCL. Despite installing the SEM, MSEDCL withheld OA permission for its own fault of not checking the meter in a timely manner and re-programming/ recalibrating it as required. The Commission s directive was only to install SEM and not to replace CTs and PTs, which MSEDCL called upon TML to do. Commission s Analysis and Ruling: 7. TML is an EHV-connected consumer of MSEDCL, which is generating wind energy at different sites with a total installed capacity of MW. TML is a Captive OA Consumer since This Case centres around the SEM at TML s premises not being in accordance with the specifications for enabling OA, which resulted in OA not being granted for the 7 months of April to October, The chronology of events and most relevant correspondence between TML and MSEDCL are set out below: (i) The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February, 2010 between TML, MSEDCL and MSETCL show that nine 220 kv single core metering CTs of 0.2 Accuracy Class with / 1 Amp. Ratio were supplied by MSETCL, and had been tested by the MSEDCL Testing Division, Pune. Its MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 12 of 16

13 report was submitted to MSETCL vide letter dated 24 December, 2009 for erection of CTs and arrangement of control cables. (ii) The Minutes also show that MSEDCL planned to provide a Summation Meter (Apex Meter) for the three 220 kv feeder arrangement of TML, the procurement order for which was placed by Chief Engineer, Pune Zone on 28 May, The factory inspection of the Summation Meter was done by MSEDCL, and the defects pointed out were to be rectified so as to install the correct meter for TML. (iii) The Minutes of the meeting were signed by SE, Testing, Pune, SE, EHV (O&M), TML s Senior Manager (CPED), SE, Ganeshkhind (Pune) Urban Circle (GKUC), the Executive Engineers (Testing), GKUC and Bhosari Division, and the Executive Engineer, RS Division, Pune (Annexure A of the Petition). (iv) The connection with the 0.2 class CT and Apex Meter, etc. was tested by MSEDCL and report in NC-1 Form (connection checking of HT consumer) was recorded on 2/4 May, 2011 (Annexure B of the Petition). From the above, it is clear that the specifications of the CTs were not only decided by MSETCL, but that these were procured and supplied by it. Further, the CTs were also tested and commissioned by MSEDCL. With this equipment configuration at site, TML was granted OA for FY for its multiple injection sources. (v) MSEDCL, Pune wrote to TML on 24 May, 2013 to apply for installation of SEM as per its Circular 194 dated 3 July, 2013, at the cost of TML. TML replied vide letter dated 4 June, 2013 that SEM of the required specifications had already been installed. (vi) The letter dated 7 July, 2014 of SE, GKUC, Pune to SE (TQA), Rastapeth, Pune (Annexure O of the Petition), referring to the OA permission given by the MSEDCL Head Office, indicates that the billing meter of TML had Maximum Demand integration of 30 minutes, instead of the requirement of SEM at the injection and drawal points with active energy recording at every 15 minutes, and asks for confirmation of the consumer end SEM and Check Meter. In his reply dated 16 October, 2014, SE (TQA) stated that the metering arrangement of TML is not as per the requirements as the Load Survey data and the Maximum Demand integration of the SEM are both of 30 minutes, as against the 15 minutes configuration required. Differences with regard to the Accuracy Class of the CTs, etc. were also cited. MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 13 of 16

14 (vii) On 15 November, 2014, TML submitted 5 applications for OA for the entire period of FY for sourcing power from multiple injection points. However, vide letter dated 21 January, 2015, MSEDCL pointed out certain deficiencies to be rectified, including confirmation by MSEDCL s Testing Deptt. regarding installation of SEM meters of the required specifications. (viii) When it was not given wind energy credits for the months of October and November, 2014 against its continuing OA permission for FY , TML enquired with MSEDCL. It was told that there were issues about the Apex Meter and the CT Accuracy Class. Hence, on 9 February, 2015, TML wrote to MSEDCL reiterating that the existing SEMs were in accordance with the DOA Régulations, 2005 and Circular No. 194; that, accordingly, OA had earlier been given upto March, 2015 ; that these SEMs can be configured for 15 minute time blocks ; and that they have ABT features. TML also stated that, in 2010, MSEDCL had itself upgraded TML s metering system, and the existing CTs were also selected, tested and installed by MSEDCL at TML s cost. TML stated further that there is no requirement of Check Meter under the DOA Regulations, 2005 and MSEDCL s Circular No Considering these clarifications, TML asked MSEDCL to reinstate the adjustment of wind energy credits in its monthly energy bills. (ix) Vide his letter dated 16 February, 2015, SE (GKUC) informed CE (Testing) (with a copy to TML) that the following changes were required in TML s metering arrangement, and sought his approval: a. The SEM has Load Survey integration period of 30 minutes, which should be for 15 minutes time slot with ABT features. b. The CTs are of /1A [this appears to be an inadvertent error, and should read /1A ], 100VA, 0.2 Accuracy Class, instead of 150/1A single core single ratio, 15VA and 0.2S Accuracy Class, as required. c. The existing PTs can be used. This was approved vide reply dated 14 May, (x) On 19 February, TML wrote to CE (Testing) stating that if, inspite of its clarifications, reprogramming of the SEM and upgrading of the CTs was still considered necessary, MSEDCL may do so at TML s cost without stopping its wind energy credits. TML also wrote several letters to MSEDCL, in this background, that 6 months would be needed for any new arrangements required; that, in the meantime, the OA for FY may be continued till then; and that OA permission may be given for the subsequent period as applied for. MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 14 of 16

15 (xi) On 4 August, 2015, well into FY , MSEDCL belatedly intimated TML that, while the pending wind energy credits from November, 2014 to March, 2015 would be released, OA permission for FY could not be given with the existing SEM in view of the DOA Regulations, (xii) Vide letter dated 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it had acted upon its instructions and purchased CTs and SEM of the desired specification with ABT features. Factory inspection had been undertaken and the SEM tested at the MSEDCL TQA Lab, Pune. TML now sought installation of the SEM. TML had also placed an order for nine CTs of 0.2S Accuracy Class, which would be ready for factory inspection and testing shortly. (xiii) The Minutes of the subsequent meeting dated 7 November, 2015 between the MSEDCL Testing Division and TML show that the old SEM Apex Meter with 30 minute integration time was replaced by a new SEM Apex Meter with 15 minutes integration time and was tested and commissioned on 5 November, Being a leading industrial consumer with Contract Demand of MVA and availing OA for a long time, TML ought to have been aware of the process and the technical and other requirements. Nevertheless, in the Commission s view, the sequence of events set out above shows that the entire matter was mishandled by MSETCL and MSEDCL, quite apart from belated responses by MSEDCL. In 2011, MSETCL and MSEDCL, respectively, had themselves procured the CTs and the Apex Meter. The configurations were also verified and the equipment tested and commissioned by MSEDCL. However, neither of them thought it necessary to consider the specifications prescribed in the CEA Metering Regulations as amended from time to time, resulting in the subsequent complications and delays brought out in these proceedings. 10. Considering these circumstances, the Commission directs MSEDCL to grant OA to TML for captive use of its wind energy from April to October, 2015, and to issue the credit notes for the energy injected during this period for adjustment in the ensuing billing cycle, notwithstanding the fact that the metering configuration at that time was not in line with the CEA Metering Regulations. The Commission also notes that MSEDCL had granted OA permission for FY and FY with the earlier metering arrangement, a fact which MSEDCL has avoided addressing in its submissions. 11. In the background of this Case, the Commission would also like the Managing Directors of MSEDCL and MSETCL to review their processes at the Head Office and field levels and the coordination between them in this regard considering their impact on the consumers with whom it interacts, and apprise the Commission of MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 15 of 16

16 the corrective steps taken within 2 months. The Secretariat of the Commission shall forward a copy of this Order to them. 12. MSEDCL is silent on the issue of collection of OA processing fees thrice, raised by TML. The Commission notes that: (1) Vide letter dated 30 October, 2015, TML applied for MTOA for 3 years from FY to FY , but including from sources apart from its own wind energy generation. This was rejected by MSEDCL on 19 November, 2015 on the ground that sourcing power from multiple Generators was not permissible under the DOA Regulations, (2) Vide letter dated 17 December, 2015, TML re-submitted its MTOA applications for these 3 years for sourcing power from its own wind farms, as advised by MSEDCL. (3) On 15 March, 2016, MSEDCL asked TML to re-submit the one-time processing fees for MTOA from June, 2016 to March, MSEDCL also directed it to submit applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 by paying one-time processing fees. (4) Accordingly, TML applied for STOA (for April and May, 2016) and MTOA (from June, 2016 to March, 2019), which was processed by MSEDCL. (5) The chronology of events and correspondence regarding the STOA and MTOA applications shows that MSEDCL did not process the MTOA applications resubmitted on 17 December, 2015, and directed TML to instead submit applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 and MTOA from June, 2016 to March, Considering these facts, MSEDCL shall refund the processing fees paid in December, 2015 by adjustment in TML s energy bill for the ensuing billing cycle. The Petition of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. in Case No. 88 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (Deepak Lad) Member Sd/- (Azeez M. Khan) Member MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 16 of 16