southern regional power committeemember shri t. anandha krishnan, se, electricity department,...

SOUTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE

BANGALORE

MINUTES OF THE 15TH MEETING OF TCC OF SRPC HELD AT GOA ON 29.04.2011

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The 15th Meeting of the Technical Coordination Committee of Southern Regional

Power Committee was held at Goa on 29th April 2011. The meeting was hosted by

NPCIL. The list of participants is enclosed as Annexure-I.

1.2 Shri Sandeep Sarwate, ACE, NPCIL on behalf of NPCIL and Kaiga Generating

Station extended a hearty welcome to all dignitaries and distinguished officers of

Southern Region Power System. He said that NPCIL was honored to have the

privilege of hosting the 15th TCC meeting of SRPC. The team of NPCIL officers

guided by Shri K.P.Singh, Shri Jugal Kishore and Shri Venkatesh had been

working tirelessly to make the stay pleasant and comfortable. He requested Shri

K.P.Singh, ACE, NPCIL to deliver the welcome address.

1.3 Shri K.P.Singh, ACE, NPCIL welcomed Shri K.Radha Krishnan, Chairperson, TCC

& Member (Gen.), KSEB, Shri S.D.Taksande, Member Secretary I/c, SRPC,

esteemed delegates from Central Electricity Authority, Central Generating &

Transmission Companies, Electricity Boards, Electricity Departments, officers from

SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat and NPCIL colleagues to the 15th Meeting of TCC.

NPCIL had taken great pleasure and pride in hosting the meeting and thanked

SRPC for bestowing this opportunity to them. He said that NPCIL team form Kaiga

was very enthusiastic to host the meeting and the best possible arrangements had

been made for the stay and conduct of the meeting. He added that the recent

incident at Japan was a matter of concern to the global nuclear generation

scenario. The safety of all the nuclear plants were further being reviewed world

over. The safety of Indian nuclear power plants was also being upgraded. A copy

of the Press Release dated 13th April 2011 by Dr. S.K.Jain, CMD, NPCIL in this

regard is enclosed as Annexure-II. He informed that in SR the units at KGS &

MAPS were operating with high availability factor continuously. MAPS Unit-II had

continuous operation of 432 days which was only possible due to high up keep of

the nuclear power plants and steady grid operation. He informed that construction

works at Kudankulam were in advanced stage and sincere efforts were being made

to start the first unit in the current year 2011. He wished all the delegates a

comfortable stay in Goa. He requested Shri S.D.Taksande, Member Secretary I/c,

SRPC to take over the floor of the house for further proceeding.

1.4 Shri S.D.Taksande, Member Secretary I/c, SRPC welcomed the Members and

other delegates to the 15th TCC meeting of SRPC. He thanked NPCIL for the

immaculate arrangements made for comfortable stay and conduct of the meeting.

He regretted the inconvenience caused to the Members on account of change in

meeting dates caused due to unavoidable circumstances.

1.5 TCC welcomed the following new Members:

a) Shri K.Radhakrishnan, Member (Gen), KSEB

b) Shri H.N.Narayan Prasad, Tech Director, KPCL

c) Shri T.Jeyaseelan, Director (Distribution), TANGEDCO

d) Shri K.Mathivanan, SE, Elec. Department, Puducherry

e) Shri V. Sekhar, ED, SRTS-I, PGCIL

f) Shri R.K. Oke, Chief Engineer (Trans.), NPCIL

g) Shri J. Nanda, Regional ED, SRHQ, NTPC

1.6 TCC placed on record the excellent services rendered by the following outgoing

Members:

a) Shri T.P.Vivekanandan, Member (Gen), KSEB

b) Shri T.Anandha Krishnan, SE, Elec. Department, Puducherry

c) Shri M.L.Jadhav, Chief Engineer (Trans.), NPCIL

d) Shri A.N.Dave, Regional Executive Director, NTPC

1.7 TCC observed one minute silence on account of the sad & untimely demise of TCC

Member Shri T. Anandha Krishnan, SE, Electricity Department, Puducherry.

1.8 MS I/c, SRPC requested Shri K.Radhakrishnan, Member (Gen), KSEB and

Chairperson, TCC to preside over the meeting.

1.9 Shri K.Radha Krishnan, Chairperson, TCC & Member (Gen.), KSEB welcomed the

technical experts of Southern Region to the 15th TCC meeting. He placed on record

gratitude of the forum to M/s NPCIL for arranging the meeting in a conducive

manner. He added that the individual needs of each constituent require to have an

orientation of national growth in the power sector. Once electricity had paved way

for all round development of the society, but now electricity was stalling the growth.

Southern Region had also failed in adding adequate capacity and demand and

availability gap is widening. He urged everybody to be more serious towards need

for national growth in the power sector.

2Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

1.10 The Agenda was taken up for discussion.

2. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 14TH MEETING OF TCC 2.1 The Minutes of the 14th meeting of the Technical Coordination Committee of SRPC

held at Mamallapuram on 25th November, 2010 were circulated vide letter dated

13th December 2010.

2.2 KSEB vide letter dated 28th December 2010 (Annexure-III) had furnished the

comments on the following paras:

Para 25.9 – Installation of capacitors

Para 26.2 – DSM measure implemented by Kerala

2.3 MS I/c, SRPC clarified that requirement of capacitors shown as 15 MVAR was

cumulative figure taking into account assessment for the year 2009-10 and not for

only 2010-11. Modification in the Minutes could however be made in respect of

para 25.9. The information furnished in respect of DSM measure implemented by

Kerala could be taken as additional information.

2.4 CEE (LD), KPTCL informed that 88.36 MVAR capacitors had been installed in

Karnataka Grid during 2010-11 and accordingly Table in 25.9 be modified.

2.5 After deliberation it was noted that information furnished by KSEB vide letter dated

28th December 2010 in respect of DSM measure implemented could be considered

as additional information. Considering KPTCL & KSEB’s additional information, the

Minutes of the Meeting were confirmed with the following modification:

25.9 Installation of Shunt Capacitors

The progress of installation of capacitors by the constituents during the

year 2010-11 is given in Table below:

(Figures in MVAR) Carry over of 2009-10 Installed during the year

2010-11 Andhra Pradesh 55 0 Karnataka 98.2 88.36

Kerala 10 0 Tamil Nadu 101 0 Total 264.2 88.36

3. NEW PROJECTS OF NTPC, NLC, NPCIL & UMPP

3.1 NTPC - Simhadri Stage-II (2x500 MW)

3.1.1 Till the 15th SRPC meeting the following was noted:


MoP had conveyed the allocation of power from Simhadri Stage-II to the beneficiary States.

APTRANSCO had stated that as per their information Unit-I of Simhadri Stage-II was not expected before March 2011.

NTPC had informed that the steam blowing was scheduled to be started on 27th November 2010. NTPC was making all efforts to commission the unit by the end of January 2011. However, there could be a delay by 1 or 2 weeks.

3.1.2 In the meeting, Regional ED, NTPC informed that Unit-I had achieved full load

on 31st March 2011. They had planned 14 days trial operation of the unit. The

CoD was expected by 1st week of July 2011 (revised from March 2011). Unit-II

would be run on full load in December 2011 and CoD was expected by January

2012 (revised from June 2011).

3.1.3 GM, SRLDC said that injection of infirm power by Simhadri-II units should be

regulated in real time taking care of line loading as per SRLDC directions. UI

needed to be controlled keeping in view the line loadings.

3.1.4 Regional ED, NTPC said that during stabilization period there could be some

variation but as far as possible they would regulate the infirm power injection by

Simhadri –II station.

3.1.5 Director (GO), APTRANSCO pointed that as per CERC Regulations, infirm

power injection by generators could only be with the prior concurrence/consent

of respective RLDC/SLDC.

3.2 Neyveli TS-II Expansion (2x250 MW)

3.2.1 In 15th SRPC meeting, the following was noted:

Director (Power), NLC had informed that due to delay by M/s.BHEL, the project was expected to be delayed by about three months. Unit-I & Unit-II were now scheduled for commissioning by March 2011 & June 2011 respectively.

Chairperson, SRPC & MD, KPTCL had expressed concern over the delay in commissioning of the projects. She had pointed out that in the 14th SRPC Meeting, NLC had informed that Unit-I would in all likelihood get commissioned in December 2010. Thus the additional IDC burden due to project delays should therefore not be passed on to the beneficiaries and be absorbed by the concerned generators.

Director (Power), NLC had informed that while there was no increase in the project cost, there could be certain increase in the IDC component. The additional burden, if any, should be absorbed by M/s.BHEL since there was no delay on NLC’s part. NLC had been continuously raising the issue with MoP, Ministry of Heavy Industries & M/s.BHEL. Man power mobilization was a major issue with M/s.BHEL.


Chairman, TANTRANSCO had expressed that due to delay by M/s.BHEL, many of the projects were getting delayed. He suggested that a consensus was required in this regard. The SR generators could approach MoP/Ministry of Heavy Industries through this forum to express their concern regarding delay of works by M/s. BHEL. A mechanism should also be in place for prioritization of the equipment supply to various projects.

Chairperson, SRPC had opined that MoP could be addressed to arrange a meeting in this regard.

Accordingly, Chairperson, SRPC had taken up the matter with Secretary (Power) vide letter dated 24th January, 2011 (Annexure-IV).

3.2.2 In the meeting, CGM, NLC informed the following:

Despite the assurance given by BHEL in the meeting taken by Chairperson, CEA, the project was getting delayed by BHEL.

Unit-I steam blow out had been completed. Restoration was in full swing. Synchronization would be by 2nd week of May 2011 and CoD in July 2011 (revised from March 2011).

Unit-II was expected to be synchronized during December 2011 and CoD would be possible in March 2012 (revised from June 2011).

3.2.3 MS I/c, SRPC pointed out that early commissioning of the units would help to

ease the S1-S2 congestion issue, especially since Simhadri-II generation was

coming on other side. He requested NLC to expedite commissioning of the

units.

3.2.4 CGM, NLC informed that this was the first CFBC boiler of 250 MW capacity of

its kind and that too in lignite. Hence they had anticipated certain teething

troubles. However, NLC had taken care based on the experience from

Barsingsar Project.

3.3 NPCIL - Kudankulam Stage-I (2x1000 MW)

3.3.1 The following was noted in the 15th SRPC meeting:

NPCIL had informed that about 97% of the works were complete in Kudankulam and there could be a delay of about two months. Kudankulam Unit-I earlier scheduled for March 2011 was now scheduled for June 2011. Unit-II was now expected by March 2012.

SRLDC had pointed out that the power transfer capability from S1-S2 area would be affected due to delay in the commissioning of Kudankulam project.

SRPC had suggested that NPCIL may expedite the commissioning activities of the Kudankulam units and that there should be no further delay. NPCIL management was also needed to be apprised of the fact that the delay in commissioning was aggravating the S1-S2 power transfer constraints.


In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 3rd January 2011, it was informed by NPCIL that reactor of 1st Unit was likely to go critical by March 2011 and generation was expected from April 2011.

3.3.2 In the meeting, ACE, NPCIL informed that about 98% works had been

completed in respect of Unit-I and was expected by June 2011. In respect of

Unit-II, 93% works had been completed and was expected by March 2012.

However, they were expecting certain revision of the schedules of

commissioning subsequently. They had energised 400 kV switchyard at

Kudankulam GT and UAT was in service. Critical tests on reactor were in

progress and the progress was being monitored at the highest level.

3.3.3 GM, SRLDC expressed that commissioning of these units would ease the S1-

S2 corridor congestion. Early commissioning of bus reactors should be

ensured for giving reliable start up power to Kudankulam. The second line of

Thirunelveli-Kudankulam 400 kV line would be taken into service whenever the

voltage at Thirunelveli is 410 kV or below and would be taken out when the

voltage touched 425 kV level. NPCIL was also requested to validate the RTU

field input at Kudankulam since there was about 16 kV voltage difference

observed in SCADA values of SRLDC.

3.3.4 ED, SRTS-II PGCIL said that for the last couple of years four circuits were

being kept idle without charging. There was a threat of theft of conductors and

damage to towers. There was a need of keeping one circuit each of the two

double circuits live always. Thirunelveli was facing over voltages. In the

present grid scenario, the reactor commissioning was to be advanced by NPCIL

since there is a need for anchoring at Kudankulam end.

3.3.5 ACE, NPCIL informed that no such requirement of expediting the reactor

commissioning had been communicated to them by PGCIL or SRLDC. The

reactors were coming up as a package as per the time schedule. However,

NPCIL would look into the matter and would take needful action. He said that

overvoltage was a location specific problem.

3.3.6 GM, SRLDC also informed that the speech connectivity to SRLDC had not

been established by NPCIL. The SPS also needed to be commissioned before

the unit synchronization in the interest of grid.

3.3.7 PGCIL informed that TANTRANSCO had conveyed concurrence for installation

of MUX in Udumalpet & Madurai S/S. It was assured that they would expedite

and implement the SPS before the unit was synchronized.


3.4 Vallur Joint Venture between NTPC & TNEB (3x500 MW) 3.4.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC meeting:

TANTRANSCO had informed that there were certain issues regarding the coal handling plant and the commissioning of the 1st unit could be delayed by 2-3 months.

NTPC had informed that the CHP had already been placed and NTECL was not anticipating delay.

MoP vide letter dated 28th September 2010 had communicated the allocation of power to the beneficiary States.

Tamil Nadu had informed that Vallur being a joint venture project they were entitled to get 75% allocation while MoP allocation was only about 69%. They would approach MoP for revised allocation from this project.

Regarding start up power, PGCIL had informed that the commissioning requirement would be met and no delay was expected from their end.

Chairman, TANTRANSCO had informed that they have taken up the issue regarding the allocation from Joint Venture Projects with MoP and the issue was under examination. The project was getting delayed as M/s.BHEL were not adhering to the supply schedule. The first unit is expected to be synchronized by June 2011. The commercial operation could be in the latter half of 2011. A meeting in this regard was scheduled for 27th November 2010. Status of commissioning schedule would be communicated to SRPC Secretariat.

Secretary (Power), Puducherry had pointed out that Puducherry had been allocated only 6.7 MW from this project which was much below the requirement projected.

3.4.2 In the meeting, Regional ED, NTPC informed that Unit-I was expected by

October 2011 while Unit-II was expected by January 2012.

3.4.3 ED, SRTS-I, PGCIL informed that LILO of 400 kV Almathy-Chennai line at

Vallur was to be completed before June 2011. Foundation & tower erection

works had been completed in most of the stretches. The LILO was crossing

both Nellore-Almathy & Almathy-Chennai lines. He therefore requested the

constituents to concur for the shutdown proposed by Power Grid.

3.4.4 GM, SRLDC informed that the study report had already been submitted, Tamil

Nadu & Karnataka would be required to go for additional load shedding while

AP may be required to back down generation. The outage was similar to 400

kV Vijayawada-Nellore shutdown with little less severity.

3.4.5 After deliberations, it was decided that OCC would deliberate in detail about the

proposed shutdown of the lines and other related issues.


3.5 Joint Venture of NLC & TNEB at Tuticorin (2x500 MW) 3.5.1 The following was noted till the 15th SRPC meeting:

NLC had informed that orders had been placed on M/s. BHEL and civil works had commenced. It was a coal based project and was new area for them. The schedule of 40 months & 45 months from LOA signing i.e. 28.01.2009 was likely to be delayed by 2-3 months.

MoP had communicated allocations to the beneficiary States.

NLC had informed that with the action plan given by M/s. BHEL, Units I & II were scheduled to be commissioned during August 2012 & October 2012 respectively.

In the 14th TCC meeting, TN had informed that Hon’ble Chief Minister, Tamil Nadu had addressed to Hon’ble Prime Minister seeking revision of allocation from this project. Tamil Nadu being the Home State was entitled to get 75% of allocation from this project.

Chairman, TANTRANSCO had informed that originally the project was an approved 500 MW plant of Tamil Nadu. The ongoing Joint Venture project was a replacement plant with 1000 MW capacity at the same site. Tamil Nadu had provided facilities like land, environmental clearances etc. to this project. There were no clear policy guidelines in place regarding allocation of power from Joint Venture projects.

Chairperson, SRPC & MD, KPTCL had opined that it could be that the allocation in respect of Joint Venture projects is also being done as for UMPP projects. However allocation of power was a subject matter of MoP.

3.5.2 In the meeting, CGM, NLC informed that the commissioning activities were

progressing as per schedule.

3.6 Kayamkulam 1950 MW/1050 MW Plant 3.6.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC meeting:

NTPC had informed that Feasibility Report for the project had been finalized. NTPC had forwarded the PPAs to the beneficiaries and requested for early signing of the same. Pipeline from Kochi Terminal to Kayamkulam was being developed by M/s. GAIL.

MD, KPCL had informed that Government of India had already circulated drafts on Price Pooling Mechanism. The Policy Note in this regard had also been circulated. The price of LNG was linked with prices of crude oil. The unit rate was likely to be `3.75 - `4.00 per unit in the present scenario, with crude oil prices ranging between US $ 70-80/barrel.

CMD, APTRANSCO had informed that conditional consent had already been communicated to NTPC.

Tamil Nadu & Puducherry had pointed out that presently the price pooling mechanism was not very clear. They would be interested in off take of power from this project, in case the tariff was advantageous.


MoP had convened a meeting in this regard in November 2010 to discuss price pooling mechanism/mitigation measures etc. The Minutes of this meeting were awaited.

PGCIL had requested NTPC to apply for Connectivity & also LTA simultaneously.

NTPC had expressed that it was the responsibility of the beneficiaries to apply for LTA to STU or CTU. NTPC was agreeable to apply LTA on behalf of the beneficiaries only after they authorize NTPC to do so. The sale of power was at the bus bar of station as per the PPA.

Chairperson, SRPC & MD, KPTCL had informed that the concerned utilities had attended the MoP meeting. Until the mitigation measures/price pooling were clearly spelt out, it would be difficult to sign the PPA in the present form. SRPC could arrive at a consensus in this regard.

NTPC had brought to the attention of the Government that the power plant could be set up only after consent of the pre defined beneficiaries.

Chairman, TANTRANSCO had informed that TN had not declined to take power from the project. It had expressed concern on signing of PPA in the present form.

Director (GO), APTRANSCO had informed that AP’s conditional consent had been given. However, they could give the final consent only after knowing the cost implications.

Chairperson SRPC & MD, KPTCL had opined that the transmission requirement could be finalised after identification of the beneficiaries. She suggested that PGCIL may examine, identify the transmission requirements and revert back. The existing/planned transmission system in that area needed to be analysed for possible interconnection. Whether NTPC or the State utilities had to approach CTU for the transmission scheme could be decided, once the issue regarding gas pricing became clear.

Chairman, TANTRANSCO had brought to attention that after January 2011, the system was moving towards Tariff based bidding. Hence how these transmission schemes would fit in the future scenario needed to be understood.

ED, PGCIL had opined that transmission sector was also moving towards tariff based bidding. However the time for planning and implementation would be of much significance in the new scenario also. He added that as per the preliminary assessment, additional transmission requirements for Kayamkulam was required and considering the RoW issues in Kerala four years time period would be an ambitious target for implementation.

NTPC had requested the beneficiaries to initiate necessary action in this regard.

3.6.2 In the meeting, Regional ED, NTPC informed that in the meeting taken by

Secretary (Power), States had been requested to sign PPAs as per their

commitments (copy of the Minutes enclosed as Annexure-V). Regarding high


price of RLNG/cost of power, mitigation measures would be evolved when

crude oil price rises abnormally beyond $100/barrel.

3.6.3 TANTRANSCO & KSEB representatives informed that they would furnish their

comments after examining the Minutes in detail.

3.6.4 Regarding transmission system, PGCIL informed that in the revised scenario,

the scheme would be taken up through Empowered Committee, Bid process

coordinator would have to coordinate with the prospective developer. Gas

stations generally come up very quickly. Kerala had critical RoW issues.

Therefore they had requested the beneficiaries/NTPC to apply for LTOA so that

they could plan the transmission system. Unless that was done, the gas station

may come up without evacuation lines. After the PPA was concluded, there

would not be enough time for the evacuation lines to come up, especially in a

State like Kerala with RoW problems.

3.6.5 Regional ED, NTPC pointed out that unless the PPA was signed they may not

be able to apply for LTOA.

3.7 NLC New Thermal Power Project (2x500 MW) 3.7.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC meeting:

NLC had proposed to construct a new lignite based Thermal Power Project of 2 x 500 MW capacity at Neyveli, as a replacement for the existing and old thermal power station – I of 600 MW capacity at an estimated cost of ` 5596 Crores.

PGCIL had informed that the evacuation scheme would be taken up with Standing Committee after finalization of the allocations. NLC had taken up the issue regarding power evacuation from the project with CEA.

Director (Power), NLC had informed that the project was likely to take 40 months after PIB approval and was targeted to be commissioned in 2014.

NLC had further informed that the PPA was required to be submitted to MoP and draft PPA had already been circulated to beneficiaries. Comments had been received from AP, Karnataka, Kerala & TN.

MoP vide letter dated 29th October 2010 had communicated allocation of power from this project.

The share 719.07 MW of Tamil Nadu includes 66 MW for NLC. In order to avoid future commercial issues, NLC was requested to approach MoP for allocation of 66 MW separately to NLC to meet its mines & township loads.


Chairman, TANTRANSCO had expressed that the new plant was basically a replacement for the existing station of 600 MW which was solely dedicated to Tamil Nadu. Since it was a replacement station, full 1000 MW of power needed to be allocated to them. They would be taking up the issue with MoP regarding review of allocation. The issue regarding compensatory power during 3-4 years of commissioning period had also been taken up with NLC & MoP, GoI. He had informed that the PPA would be signed shortly.

PGCIL had informed that NLC had applied for connectivity. In the recent meeting held on 16.11.2010, NLC had been requested to apply for LTA also to take up planning of evacuation scheme.

Director (Power), NLC had informed that the new station was a replacement project for the existing 600 MW multi unit station which was commissioned in 1962 and had completed about 48 years of service. 66 MW of power had been allocated to NLC to meet its Mine – I & township loads. The existing 600 MW station would continue to be in service until the first unit of the new project was commissioned. NLC would apply for LTA to PGCIL.

Secretary (Power), Puducherry had informed that the PPA would be signed by 1st week of December 2010.

Chairman, KSEB had informed that certain suggestions had been put forth to NLC regarding the PPA and the matter was under finalization.

Chief Secretary, Puducherry had vide letter dated 6th January 2011 requested MoP to allocate at least 96 MW of additional power to UT of Puducherry to meet the requirements.

3.7.2 In the 15th Commercial Sub- Committee meeting held on 22nd February

2011, it was noted that all the beneficiaries of Southern Region had signed

the PPA. NLC letter dated 27th January 2011 in this regard is at Annexure-

VI.

3.7.3 In the meeting, CGM, NLC informed that MoP had been approached for

separate allocation of 66 MW which was now part of Tamil Nadu’s allocation of

71.07 MW. Reply from MoP was awaited. PIB had recommended the project

to CCEA and would be taken up with the Cabinet Committee on infrastructure

for requisite GoI sanction. PPA had been signed and PGCIL had also been

approached for the evacuation requirements.

3.7.4 EE, Electricity Department, Puducherry said that around 80 MW of requirement

for the Karaikal region was presently being met through purchase from NLC

TS-I. However, only 4.7 MW had been allocated to them in the new project.

He requested that constituents should recommend 100 MW share to

Puducherry else acute power shortage in Karaikal region may be experienced

in future. 11Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

3.7.5 TCC pointed out that the allocation was a subject matter of MoP and

Puducherry may approach MoP accordingly.

3.8 Krishnapattanam UMPP (3960 MW)

3.8.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC Meeting:

The unit configuration had been finalized as 6x660 MW and Hon’ble CERC had been approached for the revised configuration. LOI had been placed with M/s. Shanghai Electric Corporation.

MD, KPTCL & Chairperson, SRPC had suggested that other activities could continue pending approval of Hon’ble CERC for the revised unit configuration.

CMD, APTRANSCO had informed that about ` 300 Crores had already been invested by the developer and progress was there in all the fronts. Since it was a tariff based bidding unit configuration was allowed to be changed, subject to the condition that there would be no change in the tariff. Pile testing had been completed and major packages were under advance stage of finalisation.

CMD, APTRANSCO had informed that the project was being developed by Reliance Power Ltd. (RPL) through Case 2 bidding. In the Joint Meeting of the procurers, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Tamil Nadu held at Hyderabad on 26th August 2010, it was decided to file a review petition before CERC for ensuring neutrality of energy keeping in view the revised unit configuration. Land acquisition R&R, and civil works were being taken up but the main plant related works had not been initiated.

The plant may come up beyond 2014.

KPTCL & PGCIL had resolved the issues in respect of the Indemnification Agreement.

By 30th November 2010, PPA was to be signed by all the beneficiaries.

Maharashtra & Karnataka Discoms were yet to enter into PPA with CAPL while the other beneficiaries had signed the PPA.

MD, KPTCL had informed that PPA would be signed after their next Board Meeting.

3.8.2 The status in respect of Krishnapattanam UMPP as on 7th April 2011 as

downloaded from the CEA website is furnished in Annexure-VII.

3.8.3 In the meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that as per the information collected

from CEA website the progress of the project was as follows:

“97% of land had been acquired. 90% boundary work completed. Leveling of site in main plant completed. Piling work started for Chimney, CW pump house & TG foundation. Ground improvement works are in progress for cooling tower area. Approach road constructed, area drains, plant roads & permanent stores under construction. Soil investigation works for Sea Water Intake System were in progress.”


3.8.4 CEE (LD), KPTCL informed that Karnataka distribution companies had entered

into PPA.

3.9 NLC Sirkali Thermal Power Project (3X660 MW)

3.9.1 In the 15th Commercial Sub-Committee meeting held on 22nd February 2011, it

was noted that NLC vide letter dated 27th January 2011 (refer Annexure-VI) had

informed that PPA had been signed with all the beneficiaries of Southern

Region before the stipulated date of 05.01.2011 specified by MoP and vide

letter dated 18th February 2011 (Annexure-VIII) had informed details about the

project. Sirkali TPP was proposed to be located in Nagapattinam District using

imported coal as fuel. The project was at an initial stage. The tentative

levelised tariff was around `3.50 per KWHr.

3.9.2 In the meeting, CGM, NLC informed that site visit of CEA officials which was

planned for 13th April 2011 had now been scheduled in May 2011. Action had

been initiated to prepare Feasibility Report, Environment Impact Assessment

(EIA), Environment Management Plan (EMP) reports etc.

3.10 The scheduled dates of commissioning of the Central Sector/JV projects as

communicated are furnished below:

Station Unit Installed Capacity

MW Scheduled date of

commissioning Remarks

NTPC Simhadri Stage-II I 500 July 2011 Achieved full load on 29.03.2011

II 500 January 2012 Work in progress Kayamkulam I, II,

III 1050/1950 12th Plan Gas supply by 2014. Karnataka

& Kerala requested for 500 MW each. AP had given conditional consent. TN & Puducherry would consider after knowing the tentative tariff.

Vallur JV with TNEB

I 500 Original schedule: February 2011 Anticipated schedule: October 2011

Work in progress

II 500 Original schedule: August 2011 Anticipated schedule: Jan. 2012

Work in progress

III 500 December 2012 Investment approval obtained from NTECL Board

MOEF Cleared on 03.06.09 CRZ clearance on 14.07.09


NLC Neyveli-II Expn. I 250 July 2011 Work in progress. Delay due to

BHEL. II 250 Mar. 2012 Tuticorin JV with TNEB

I 500 Original schedule: 40 months after LOA (signed on 28.01.2009) Anticipated schedule: Aug. 2012

Delay of 2-3 months. Order had been placed on BHEL. Civil works commenced.

II 500 Original schedule: 45 months after LOA (signed on 28.01.2009) Anticipated schedule: Oct. 2012

Sirkali TPP I, II, III

3x660 From GoI approval Unit I – 52 months Unit II – 58 months Unit-III – 64 months

PPA has been signed. Fuel imported coal.

NPCIL Kudankulam Stage-I

I 1000 June 2011 (NPCIL to communicate firm date) II 1000 Mar. 2012

Kalpakkam (PFBR)

I 500 Mar. 2012 Work in progress

UMPP Krishnapattanam 3960

(6x660) Schedule COD with respect to transfer of SPV: Sep. 2013 – Oct. 2015 1st Unit: June 2013 2nd Unit: Oct. 2013 3rd Unit: Feb. 2014 4th Unit: June 2014 5th Unit: Oct. 2014 6th Unit: Feb. 2015

Details in Annexure-VII (Para 3.8.2). Units configured as 6x660 MW. Amended PPA for 6x660 MW had been executed with the procurers.

Cheyyur 4000 2015-2017 Site finalised during meeting of CMs held on 04.08.08. Consultants appointed by SPV of PFC. Draft of rapid EIA report completed.

3.11 A Statement giving details of MOP allocation/power requirements indicated by

various constituents of SR from the New Projects is given at Annexure-IX.

4. PAYMENT OF CHARGES OF TNEB OWNED TRANSFORMERS AT SRIPERUMBUDUR AND SALEM

4.1 TNEB vide letter dated 27th May 2010 had informed that even after submission of

the copy of the agreement signed between SR constituents and NLC, none of the

constituents had made the payment due to them since August 2009.

14

4.2 The matter was discussed in the 13th & 14th Commercial Sub-Committee meetings

where in APPCC and PCKL computations were considered. In the 14th Commercial

Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

Sub-Committee Meeting, it was decided that TNEB would compute the charges for

the period from 1.4.1991 to 31.12.2011 in line with norms prevailing during the

period and the Commercial Sub-Committee would validate the same for

subsequent approval of TCC/SRPC. In the 15th SRPC Meeting, the Committee

had agreed to the Commercial Sub-Committee proposal. TN had agreed to furnish

the computations based on the norms prevailing during the applicable period on

par with PGCIL assets.

4.3 Subsequently, TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 5th January 2011 (Annexure-X) had

furnished the computations based on the norms prevailing during the applicable

period on par with Power Grid assets. It had been submitted that the constituents

may agree to pay `15 lakhs/month to TANTRANSCO towards transmission charges

for the transformers at Sriperumbudur & Salem till the transformers are in service.

The constituents had also been requested to release balance payment from

September 2009 for the transformers and the current transmission charges from

January 2011 onwards.

4.4 The issue was further deliberated in the 15th meeting of Commercial Sub-

Committee held on 22nd February 2011 (Extract from the minutes at Annexure-XI)

wherein after deliberation, the Committee decided to put up the TANTRANSCO

computations to TCC / SRPC. TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011

(item No.8) (Annexure-XII) had raised the issue again.

4.5 In the meeting, TANTRANSCO informed that as per the revised calculation, the

charges work out to around `30 lakhs per month.

4.6 CEE (LD), KPTCL said that they were not agreeable for the computation furnished

by TN. He opined that the issue should once again be deliberated by the

Commercial Sub-Committee.

4.7 Director (Tr.), KPTCL said that further there were some issues related to O&M

norms etc. which had not been considered as suggested by PCKL.

4.8 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL observed that as per the revised norms, the real entitlement to

TN was much more than what was being claimed by them.

4.9 MS I/c, SRPC said that the Commercial Sub-Committee had considered the

computations prepared by APPCC, PCKL & TANTRANSCO. The computation

furnished by TANTRANSCO were based on the norms prevailing during the years

on par with PGCIL assets had been recommended by Commercial Sub-Committee

for TCC consideration. 15Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

4.10 After deliberation, TCC recommended that the payment of `15 lakhs/month to

TANTRANSCO towards transmission charges for TNEB owned transformers at

Sriperumbudur & Salem be continued as computations were in accordance with

PGCIL methodology and `15 lakhs/month was rather on lower side of actual

entitlement. Further the payment stopped by the constituents could be released.

5. MAINTENANCE OF MARCONI MAKE SDH EQUIPMENT 5.1 Upgradation

5.1.1 The following was noted till the 15th SRPC Meeting:

Cost of SDM 16 was around `4 lakhs while that of SDM 64 was around `16 lakhs.

PGCIL (for Central Sector and also on behalf of AP & Kerala) and Tamil Nadu would implement STM 4/16 (as per CEA letter dated 10/02/2010 addressed to MS SRPC) technology as it was sufficient for the coming 6-7 years. The technology in this sector was getting obsolete at much faster rate and the constituent States could take a call on the available technology after 5-6 years.

Tamil Nadu would carry out the maintenance works on their own and ensure availability of communication to facilitate Grid Operation.

APTRANSCO & KSEB had agreed to sign the MoU. PGCIL had informed that the tendering activities would be taken up after signing of the MoU.

5.1.2 In the meeting, PGCIL informed that NIT would be floated by 15th May 2011.

Contract was likely to be finalised within three months. The execution schedule

would be around 12 months. After finalization of the contract, MoU would be

signed with APTRANSCO & KSEB.

5.2 Maintenance

5.2.1 The following was noted till the 15th SRPC Meeting:

Andhra Pradesh & Kerala agreed that PGCIL may take up the AMC through M/s. Comtel. The likely cost was around `45 lakhs for AP, `15 lakhs for Kerala & `17 lakhs for PGCIL.

APTRANSCO & KSEB had signed the MoU for maintenance. PGCIL was going ahead with tendering activities and by 1st week of February 2011, AMC would be in place.

The AMC may be renewed annually till the new system was established.

Tamil Nadu would carry out the maintenance works on its own.

5.2.2 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that the AMC may be extended for two years. New

contract would be implemented well within the extended period of AMC.


5.2.3 In the meeting, APTRANSCO pointed out that AMC needed to be terminated

once the new system came up, since two payments could not be made for the

same facility. 21-22 items were to be replaced in a planned and phased

manner and the AMC may have to taper off.

5.2.4 After deliberation, TCC recommended renewal of AMC for two years with a

provision to terminate at any time after one year in the event of commissioning

of new system.

6. CONSTRAINTS IN TRANSMISSION SCHEMES FOR ISTS 6.1 RoW of 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode 400 DC line

6.1.1 Till the 15th SRPC meeting, the following was noted:

PGCIL had informed that the Principal Secretary (Forest), Government of Karnataka had agreed to recommend the matter to MoEF in about a week’s time. They would follow up the issue at MoEF and parallelly take up the issue regarding coffee plantations with the Revenue Authorities.

Chairperson, SRPC & MD, KPTCL had opined that once the forest clearance case was recommended to MoEF, it would be easier to take up the RoW issue with the coffee plantation owners.

ED, PGCIL had informed that the issue which was earlier deadlocked in the State Forest Department had now moved positively to the Regional MoEF office. Regional Conservator may go for physical inspection of the proposed alignment. Proactive field work had already been initiated by PGCIL at the Delhi office.

MD, KPTCL had informed that they had faced similar issues regarding forest and coffee plantation in respect of Hassan-Nandikur line. After the inspection by the Regional MoEF office, the Delhi office could form a Committee to ascertain the wild life aspects also. Regarding compensation to coffee plantation, KPTCL had gone ahead with the compensation rates fixed by the Coffee Board to the occupants of the property. Ownership issues were not considered in this regard. The occupants were paid after obtaining an Affidavit. KPTCL had gone ahead to settle the RoW issues jointly with Turnkey Agency and Liaison Officer through the local Panchayat.

Chairman, TANTRANSCO informed that similar arrangement at local level was made by TNEB to settle the RoW issues. He urged that the 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode line should come up at the earliest, since it would improve interconnection between S1 & S2 areas.

Chairman, KSEB suggested that PGCIL may initiate taking up compensation issues with Coffee Board and adopt similar approach being followed by KPTCL to minimize loss of time.

ED, PGCIL had informed that they would follow KPTCL approach in RoW resolution.


6.1.2 In the meeting, ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that a High Level Meeting was

held on 21st April 2011. MD, KPTCL, Addl. Chief Secretary (Energy),

Government of Karnataka, forest officials and senior officials of PGCIL had

attended this meeting. Another meeting was scheduled to be held within a

fortnight. Issues were getting converged for recommendation to Government of

India. Discussions with Chairman, Coffee Board had been held. Issues were

likely to be resolved on one to one basis with coffee plantation occupants. It

was being highlighted to the State Government that in the long term perspective

plan, the lines were beneficial to Karnataka.

6.1.3 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that support at highest level was required from both

Kerala & Karnataka for completion of 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode line.

6.1.4 Director (GO), APTRANSCO observed that the IDC component was increasing

significantly due to this delay. The impact would have to be borne by all the

constituents. The issue therefore needed to be resolved at the earliest.

6.1.5 Member (Gen.), KSEB pointed out that KPTCL was restricting drawal on 220

kV Kadakola-Kanniampeta lines to 120 MW which was causing much difficulty

to north Kerala.

6.1.6 CE, KSEB said that the Kadakola-Kanniampeta line was designed for drawing

180 MW. Earlier Kerala was drawing 180 MW, however recently KPTCL had

restricted the drawl to 120 MW. Towards northern part of Kerala there was no

inter-state feeder for evacuation of power. In view of 400 kV Mysore –

Kozhikode line getting unduly delayed, the flow on the Kadakola-Kanniampeta

line should be allowed to 180 MW.

6.1.7 Director (Tr.), KPTCL pointed out that this being a very old line, presently only

120 MW flow could be allowed.

6.1.8 Member (Gen.), KSEB said that maintenance of all critical lines should be

carried out so as to load to the designed values. Presently, the line was being

operated at 50% capacity. He enquired about inadequate maintenance on this

line although it was old line.

6.1.9 Director (Tr.), KPTCL opined that once 400 kV Mysore – Kozhikode line became

operational, there would be no flow on this line. Presently the option available

was to control the drawal only.


6.1.10 MS I/c, SRPC said that maintenance of the line would involve replacement of

conductor, insulators etc. which requires considerable time. Hence presently

drawal could be limited to 120 MW, preferably in radial mode. After onset of

monsoon, the demand would come down and requirement of 180 MW on this

line may not be required. It would therefore be prudent to manage the situation

in the meanwhile through appropriate load management.

6.1.11 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the requirement on certain lines vary

during the year. If the higher requirement was for a very short period, the

loading could be restricted. AP was facing similar issues with respect to

Tandur.

6.1.12 GM, SRLDC said that in the OCC meeting it was noted that strengthening of the

line in the forest area was to be carried to address the clearance issues. After

attending the clearance issue only, Kerala may be able to draw about 150 – 180

MW.

7. COAL STOCK POSITION AT THERMAL STATIONS OF SOUTHERN REGION 7.1 The need for maintaining statutory coal stock position in all the thermal stations at

all times had been deliberated in various forums of SRPC.

Constituents/Generating Companies had been requested to apprise the Committee

of the Coal Stock position in the thermal stations.

7.2 In the 15th meeting, SRPC had urged that generators may please ensure that no

loss of generation took place due to coal supply deficit.

7.3 In the 58th OCC meeting, it was noted that the coal stock position at the following

thermal stations was critical:

APGENCO Dr. N.Tata Rao TPS 4 days Ramagundam ‘B’ 5 days

AP/NTPC Simhadri Stage-I 6 days

TANGEDCO Ennore TPS 1 day Tuticorin TPS 3 days

Serious concern had been raised by the OCC Members regarding the lower

availability from Talcher Stage-II in the earlier months.


7.4 In the meeting Regional ED, NTPC informed that the coal stock at Ramagundam &

Talcher Stage-II was adequate for 13 days & 7 days respectively.

7.5 MD, TANTRANSCO informed that Ennore coal stock was adequate for around 4

days considering the present generation level. They were making efforts to improve

the coal stock at Tuticorin. He also expressed concern over the quality of coal

being supplied to TN thermal stations.

7.6 APGENCO informed that the present coal stock at various thermal power stations

of APGENCO was as follows. APGENCO was trying to improve the coal stock

position.

Station Stock in Tonnes No. of days Dr. NTTPS 1,26,285 5 Rayalaseema TPP 96,876 6 KTPS, O&M 76,367 5 KTPS Stage-V 2,18,277 24 Kakatiya TPP 1,08,608 17 RTS ‘B’ 10,144 10

7.7 Director (GO), APTRANSCO observed that the generation of power was strictly not

with respect to the availability of coal. High ash content etc. was endangering the

machines. Boulders were also being received. The issue regarding quality of coal

needed to be taken up at the highest level keeping in view electricity security and

overall gamut of energy problem.

7.8 MS I/c, SRPC said that the availability of coal was only an indication and not exactly

reflecting the energy content.

7.9 GM, SRLDC said that import of coal is necessary to meet the demand of

consumers. He said that earlier 3 units at Talcher Stage-II were stopped due to

inadequate coal stock during the peak demand period. Upto 14 MU per day loss of

generation had been experienced at Talcher Stage-II.

7.10 Regional ED, NTPC informed that they are importing 30 Lakh Ton coal for Talcher.

7.11 Member (Gen.), KSEB said that any reduction in Talcher availability seriously

affects Kerala as it had 43% share in Talcher Stage-II. Only one week coal stock

was being maintained by NTPC at Talcher Stage-II against the regulatory

requirement of one and a half month

7.12 CEE (LD), KPTCL pointed that declaration of Talcher Stage-II at its maximum

capacity by NTPC and further not maintaining the generation was reducing the ATC

availability.


7.13 SE-I, SRPC informed that this issue had been deliberated in the OCC Meetings.

NTPC had been suggested to declare 90% of normative DC till the coal stock was

in super critical condition.

7.14 EE, Puducherry also expressed concern on Talcher generation availability, as 25%

of their demand was met from Talcher.

7.15 Pending coal linkage to be cleared

TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XII) had

informed that a letter dated 20th January 2011 had been addressed from Hon’ble

Minister for Electricity/GoTN to the Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge)/

Ministry of Coal and Statics & Programme Implementation/GoI to place the

proposal during forthcoming SLC (Standing Linkage Committee) Meeting for their

consideration for getting long term coal linkage for the 2x800 MW Ennore SEZ

project. Also a DO letter dated 7th March 2011 from the Chief Secretary/Energy

Department/GoTN has been sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Coal and Statics &

Programme Implementation/GoI, New Delhi pressing the MoC to place the matter

before the next meeting of the SLC (long term) for power for the 1x600 MW Ennore

Annexe TPP and 2x800 MW Kuttupalli Super Critical TPP. Updated information for

fixing prioritization of getting long term coal linkage for the projects (2x800 Ennore

SEZ project, 1x600 MW Ennore Annexe TPP) have been forwarded to the

Director/TPI Division/CEA on 31st January 2011 for recommendation to MoC.

7.16 Reduced gas supply by M/s. GAIL to TANGEDCO Power Plants

7.16.1 TANGEDCO vide letter dated 20th November 2010 (Annexure-XIII) had

communicated the present status of gas supply to Gas Turbine Power Plants in

Tamil Nadu. The issue was taken up by Member Secretary, SRPC with Chief

Engineer (IRP), CEA, New Delhi vide letter dated 2nd December 2010.

7.16.2 In the meeting, Director, TANGEDCO informed that only 70% gas supply was

being maintained by M/s.GAIL.

7.16.3 MS I/c, SRPC enquired about the revival of Valathur units.

7.16.4 TANGEDCO informed that Valathur units were expected by 1st week of May

8. ISSUES RELATED TO TRANSMISSION SCHEMES AGREED IN THE STANDING COMMITTEE

8.1 Hosur-Electronics City 400 kV D/C line

8.1.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC meeting:


PGCIL had informed that if warranted, latest stringing methodology would be adopted.

KPTCL had informed that critical RoW issues existed at two locations. Chief Engineer (Trans.), Bangalore had been nominated from KPTCL side for the joint survey.

APTRANSCO had requested to furnish the cost implications on account of adoption of unconventional technology.

PGCIL had informed that the joint survey with KPTCL had been completed. The draft report had been submitted to KPTCL. POWERGRID had also stated that apart from severe RoW issues, there are technical difficulties in construction of the line in the same corridor. LILO of 400 kV Somanahalli-Kolar at Electronics City was also to be executed by KPTCL. Therefore, the need for Hosur-Electronics City 400 kV D/C line needed to be re-examined.

Director (Transmission), KPTCL had expressed that the Hosur-Electronics City 400 kV D/C line had been planned through Standing Committee forum.

KPTCL had informed that they would examine the report and revert back.

8.1.2 In the meeting, ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that joint detailed survey had

been taken up with KPTCL officials. With the support of KPTCL officials, the

project seemed viable. The cost of the critical RoW portion of 10 Kms could get

enhanced by 50 to 60% and may be around `2 Crore/Km. Exact details

however could be furnished only after finalization of the technology to be

adopted. It was observed that tall towers with narrow base were to be used

instead of proposed tubular poles.

8.1.3 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the Committee should be kept informed

of the enhanced cost implications likely to be incurred on account of new

technology.

8.1.4 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that in the next SRPC Meeting it might be possible

for Power Grid to summarise the cost implications.

9. TRANSMISSION CAPABILITY OF HVDC BACK TO BACK STATIONS 9.1 Till 15th SRPC meeting, the following was noted:

With effect from September 2010, PGCIL would furnish the TTC with both lines in service and with one line out, in line with the methodology suggested by SRPC Secretariat. The information would be posted on the PGCIL web site.

In the event of outage of any line, SRLDC would certify the TCR and would communicate to SRPC Secretariat.

22

For the past cases, w.e.f. 1st April 2009 (date of effectiveness of CERC Terms & Conditions of Tariff Regulations, 2009) PGCIL would interact with SRLDC. Subsequently the matter would be put upto TCC/SRPC.


PGCIL had informed that they had started posting the capability data on its web site. In respect of the past cases, the data would be furnished to SRLDC by end of November 2010.

TCC would consider the TCR computations in the next meeting.

9.2 SR-II, PGCIL vide letter dated 22nd February 2011 (Annexure-XIV) had furnished

the details regarding Jeypore-Gazuwaka outages and the TCR implications on

Gazuwaka HVDC Back to Back duly certified by SRLDC. SRPC Secretariat had

requested SR-II, PGCIL vide letter dated 3rd March 2011 to furnish similar details

regarding 400 kV Ramagundam-Chandrapur outages and the TCR implications on

Bhadravathi HVDC Back to Back Station, after certification by SRLDC.

9.3 The following was deliberated in the 57th OCC Meeting held on 9th March 2011:

PGCIL had requested shutdown of Bhadravathi poles I & II for 3 hrs each for removal of Power Demand Override (PDO) for runback scheme in the event of tripping of either of 400 KV Ramagundam-Chandrapur lines.

Constituents had pointed out that the shutdown could be availed after May 2011.

PGCIL had requested that the shutdown be categorized under deemed availability category. It was also requested that for the past cases (1st April 2009 – August 2010), the TCR could be considered as ‘Nil’ as PDO was installed in view of stability considerations and had no correlation with transmission capability of the lines.

SRLDC had clarified that they would not be able to certify the past cases and constituents had to take a decision in this regard.

It was decided that the issue could be deliberated in TCC/SRPC Meetings.

9.4 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC said that though the lines were capable to deliver the

power, due to PDO, the flow was being restricted. The constituents could therefore

take a call regarding TCR for this period.

9.5 MS I/c, SRPC said that PDO had been installed due to system security reasons

though the lines were capable of carrying the power. Hence constituents may like

to waive off the TCR during the applicable period.

9.6 Director (GO), APTRANSCO enquired how the PDO which was necessary in the

past had become redundant in the present scenario. The improvement in the

system measures made by PGCIL needed to be spelt out.

9.7 PGCIL informed that PDO had been installed in the past due to system security

reasons since the system had low short circuit level at that point of time. Number

of generators had now been added and after extensive study, PDO removal had

been recommended. They also requested for deemed availability for the period


during the removal of PDO. Power Grid was also ready with the modified software

required for this purpose.

9.8 AGM, PGCIL informed that five PDOs had earlier been installed in Vizag Pole for

stability considerations, all of which had been removed in stages. He observed that

similarly in the present grid scenario in Chandrapur, the PDO was not required.

9.9 Director (GO), APTRANSCO reiterated that the TCR should be considered for the

past cases until the PDO was removed. Other constituents endorsed the views of

APTRANSCO.

9.10 After deliberations, TCC recommended the following:

Gazuwaka HVDC back to back certification could be revised as per SRLDC certification.

In respect of Bhadravathi HVDC back to back, the TCR may be considered for the past cases and further till the PDO was removed.

Deemed availability for the period during removal of PDO scheme may be allowed to PGCIL.

10. ULDC REQUIREMENTS BEYOND 2011

10.1 The issue had been deliberated in detail till 13th SRPC meeting. Subsequently,

PGCIL vide letter dated 23.06.2010 had informed that the issue was discussed with

APTRANSCO on 24th May 2010 and they were submitting a draft MoU to them.

Further POWERGRID had not received any comments on the report circulated

from other constituents. POWERGRID vide letter dated 27th July, 2010 had

submitted BOQ for the implementation of the project to APTRANSCO. The

estimated cost was `31.09 Crores excluding consultancy charges payable to

POWERGRID.

10.2 Till 15th SRPC meeting, the following was noted:

PGCIL had informed that initial interface specification were as per the report of the Committee. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were requested to seek any clarifications in this regard from POWERGRID.

MS, SRPC had stressed that the lead time for the completion of the works was 27 months, as earlier informed by PGCIL. Since it was already August 2010, if the issues were not addressed at the earliest, the new system could be in place only by 2013.

POWERGRID vide letter dated 29th September 2010 had submitted the BOQ to Puducherry. The estimated cost was `17.1 Crores, excluding consultancy charges payable to POWERGRID.

APTRANSCO had informed that PGCIL had furnished the required details. They were in principle agreeable for the works to be executed by PGCIL.


KSEB vide letter dated 19th November, 2010 had communicated KSE Board approval. However they were waiting for the agreement format etc. from PGCIL.

SRLDC had informed that one year extension of AMC would be required since new SCADA facility would be available only after 2011. In case the constituents agreed, SRLDC would approach M/s. GE regarding AMC for one year with a provision for one more year of extension, if required.

KPTCL had requested SRLDC to inform the rates for AMC.

On a query from Chairman, KSEB about the cost estimates for maintenance, PGCIL informed that as per the rough estimate, the present cost was around `10 Crore per year. However, PGCIL would revert back with the exact figure.

After deliberation, all the constituents (except for Karnataka system) agreed for extension of AMC. SRLDC was suggested to initiate necessary action in this regard. Kerala had requested POWERGRID to depute a team for discussions on the BOQ on ULDC requirements.

10.3 KSEB vide letter dated 3rd January 2011 had requested PGCIL for personal

discussion cum negotiation of the rates offered.

10.4 PGCIL vide letter dated 3rd February 2011 (Annexure-XV) had communicated

the letters dated 8th November 2010 and 28th January 2011 from DoT for

vacating the frequency band by 2011. Power Grid was in touch with

APTRANSCO, KSEB and Puducherry for implementation of priority links

enabling timely vacation of frequency band in the DoT stipulated time frame.

Dedicated teams needed to be identified for expeditious implementation.

APTRANSCO had already initiated action in this regard and identified officials

as Coordinating Team. Other constituents needed to take action on priority

basis to facilitate vacation of frequency band in the time frame of DoT.

10.5 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th March 2011 (Annexure-XVI) had informed the

following:

A meeting was held with KSEB on 24th January 2011 regarding the consultancy proposal submitted by PGCIL. Clarifications required by KSEB were provided to them during the meeting.

Puducherry vide letter dated 10th January 2011 had requested PGCIL to submit the revised cost estimate for only Main Control Centre. PGCIL vide letter dated 27th January 2011 had submitted the revised cost estimate (`8.49 Crores excluding Consultancy charges payable to PGCIL) as requested by Puducherry.

Power Grid vide letter dated 18th November 2010 had submitted the clarifications requested by APTRANSCO regarding the consultancy proposal submitted by PGCIL. The revised cost estimated was `28.77 Crores excluding the consultancy charges payable to PGCIL.


The lead time of completion of works was 27 months and the issues needed to be addressed at the earliest. The new system could be in place only during 2013.

Formal acceptance from APTRANCO, KSEB & Puducherry was awaited.

The Microwave frequencies of the links established under ULDC are to be released by December 2011. Usage of Microwave frequencies beyond December 2011 would involve payment of huge amount of money to DoT (`642 Crores/MHz). As per the 11th SRPC approval, fibre optic links are to be established to release the microwave frequencies. TNEB shall carry out this work on their own whereas all other constituents fibre optic links have to be established by PGCIL. PGCIL had already placed order and the works shall commence soon.

10.6 SRLDC vide letter dated 15th March 2011 (Annexure-XVII) had furnished the rates

for AMC for one year with the provision for one more year for further extension if

required.

10.7 In the meeting, CE, KSEB informed that the proposal had been put up to its Board.

10.8 Director (GO), APTRANSCO informed that PGCIL had furnished the proposal for

about `48 Crores which was to be approved by State Regulator. In the first fortnight

of May 2011, discussion/presentation was likely with the State Regulator.

10.9 EE, Electricity Department, Puducherry informed that they had agreed the PGCIL

proposal in principle. After approval of JERC, further action would be taken.

10.10 MS I/c, SRPC informed that `642.388 Crores/MHz on All India basis were the

charges for not vacating the spectrum by the year 2011.

10.11 TANTRANSCO informed that they had already initiated the works and the

frequency spectrum would be vacated before December 2011.

10.12 Regarding extension of AMC, MD, TANTRANSCO pointed out that it was observed

that the rates had increased considerably and suggested that SRLDC may

negotiate to bring down the rates.

10.13 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL observed that as per Contract Law & CVC Guidelines, there

could be no negotiation with prospective L1 and the rates are to be identified by

market mechanism.

10.14 MD, TANTRANSCO said that the proposed contract may be considered as an

extension of the existing contract, so that negotiations could take place.

10.15 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that SRLDC could consider and negotiate to cut

down the liability of the constituents, since the burden in all cases would be on the

end consumer. 26Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

10.16 After deliberations, TCC recommended the following regarding AMC:

APTRANSCO, KSEB, TANTRANSCO & Puducherry agreed for AMC for one year with provision for extension by one more year.

KPTCL agreed for AMC of ICCP server with two links. 11. UTILISATION OF 25% OF STOA CHARGES BEING COLLECTED/RETAINED BY

POWERGRID

11.1 The following was noted till 15th SRPC meeting:

KSEB had mentioned that as per CERC Regulations, 25% of the STOA charges retained by POWERGRID had to be invested in the core activity i.e. transmission. The surplus amount should be reinvested in the projects benefiting all the constituents and should not be treated as revenue item of POWERGRID.

POWERGRID had mentioned that as per the existing Regulations, the charges were being retained by POWERGRID as its internal resource and is invested in the transmission schemes on a national basis and no separate accounting was done. This matter had already been deliberated before CERC and was in line with CERC Regulations.

It was decided that the matter would be taken up by POWERGRID regarding collection and utilization of the 25% charges collected through STOA and if necessary, States may approach CERC in this regard. Subsequently, the matter was taken up with POWERGRID. A copy of POWERGRID reply dated 23rd August 2010 was made available to the constituents. In this regard, APPCC vide letter dated 10th September 2010 had sought further details from POWERGRID. It was mentioned that the information was required by SR beneficiaries for further utilization of the amount.

In the 15th SRPC meeting, PGCIL had informed that they were working out the modalities and would make a presentation to SRPC in the next meeting. Global practice in this regard would also be projected.

Chairperson, SRPC & MD, KPTCL had suggested that PGCIL may present the details/modalities based on the experience in our country during the next meeting. Bench marking with reference to other countries could be with reference to efficiency and not costs.

11.2 In the meeting, PGCIL informed that they could not comprehend about the

presentation on modalities in this regard. As CTU they were undertaking a number

of important activities for the development of power sector in the country.

Investments were being made in the R&D sector for eg. 1200 kV Bina-Satna line

was being planned on an experimental basis. Testing facilities were being created.

Capacity building in power sector was also being taken up. Assistance to

Meghalaya was provided for filing tariff petitions etc for which no fees/charges

were claimed. Events like Grid Tech had also been organized for which no fees

were charged from the utilities.


11.3 CEE (LD), KPTCL said that the amount collected from Southern Region may need to

be utilized in SR only. As agreed in the 15th SRPC Meeting, PGCIL should have

come up with some presentation. Separate account region-wise was required to be

maintained with adequate transparency.

11.4 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that the investments were not being made region-wise

and a national view was being adopted by CTU. The Hon’ble Commission after

due consideration had allowed PGCIL to retain 25% of STOA charges. Any

specific concern of the States in this regard could therefore be taken up with

Hon’ble CERC.

11.5 KPTCL observed that since there was congestion in inter-regional links, the money

could have been utilized to augment the inter-regional capacity.

11.6 DGM, PGCIL informed that the inter-regional links were set up in consultation with

the States as per their requirement. Any requirement is therefore needed to be

spelt out clearly in advance. High utilization of inter-regional links was a

consequence of new market mechanism in place.

11.7 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the role of CTU was never in question. It

was well understood that PGCIL as CTU had very important responsibilities.

Constituents had only requested transparency in utilization of 25% STOA charges.

National/global experience with reference to quality etc could be shared by PGCIL

as decided in the 15th SRPC meeting.

11.8 It was decided to deliberate the matter further in the SRPC Meeting.

12. SRLDC PROPOSAL FOR AUTOMATIC DATA READING (AMR)/COLLECTION

12.1 In order to avoid data related delays and fulfill the deadlines set by IEGC, SRLDC

had proposed to adopt AMR scheme in SR. In SR there are about 600 SEMs

installed in about 100 locations. SRLDC had proposed that the scheme be

implemented by PGCIL at an estimated cost of about ` 1.5 Crores which could be

recovered through tariff in the same way as the cost of SEMs is being recovered.

SRLDC had also highlighted the operational problems being faced in this regard. As

per IEGC, SEM data needs to be transmitted to SRLDC latest by Tuesday.

However, on various occasions, sites would not be sending data by this deadline.

There were also occasions when data was not received for that week at all.

12.2 The issue was deliberated in the 14th Commercial Sub-Committee meeting held on 18th November 2010. The Committee in principle had agreed for the proposal. It was also decided that SRLDC & PGCIL could finalise the proposal in all aspects including commercial mechanism etc.


12.3 In the 15th SRPC Meeting, the following was noted:

Proposal for funding of the expenditure towards AMR, through PSDF had also been put up to the Sub Committee for due consideration.

PGCIL had stated that they would ensure availability of data latest by Tuesday to SRLDC and had informed that they would not be in a position to undertake the work for the entire region.

KPTCL had informed that their system was capable of furnishing the data on line as required by SRLDC. This would be done through SLDC. They would ensure availability of data latest by Tuesday to SRLDC.

PGCIL had informed that a pilot project in the Northern Region had been approved by NRPC. They would revert back and apprise the Committee about the NR experience. SRLDC may come out with details of any serious handicaps faced in this regard through analysis of last one year’s data. The need for the AMR could be assessed accordingly.

KSEB had observed that the requirement of AMR may need to be further examined keeping in view the weekly data requirement of SRLDC.

It was decided that SRLDC may examine and furnish the handicaps in data receipt for the past one year. PGCIL could apprise the Committee of the NR experience. KPTCL & SRLDC were requested to please interact and automate the data receipt to SRLDC. Other constituents were requested to ensure data availability to SRLDC in a timely manner in line with provisions of IEGC.

In the 15th Commercial Committee Meeting, SRLDC had again bought to attention various cases of delay in data transmission from various sites. It was also stated that KPTCL was to expedite furnishing of SEM data to SRLDC through available AMR Scheme as informed in 15th SRPC Meeting. Other States had been requested to confirm whether they had AMR Scheme for data transfer.

12.4 SRLDC vide letter dated 21st April 2011 (Annexure-XVIII) had submitted the status

of weekly receipt of SEM data furnishing the handicaps in the data receipt for the

past one year, as per the deliberations in the 15th SRPC Meeting.

12.5 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC informed that data receipt still continued in a delayed

manner in number of instances as could be seen from the status submitted.

12.6 PGCIL expressed that the delay in data receipt in respect of Talcher, could be

taken up with Eastern Region.

12.7 AGM, SRTS-I, PGCIL said that there were a few issues with remote connectivity.

Such trivial issues should be sorted out at lower forums itself. For past two

months, there had been no slippages on behalf of SR-I.


12.8 GM, SRLDC said that the communication link from Talcher to Kolar had to be

provided. He added that the matter has already been taken up with higher

management of Power Grid by SRLDC/NLDC.

12.9 CEE (LD), KPTCL pointed out that all the data from KPTCL meters was being

downloaded and being sent to SRLDC. There were however issues with regard to

PGCIL meters installed in KPTCL stations. If PGCIL allowed meter interface card

to be provided the information would flow smoothly. The issue regarding

installation of meter interface cards had been taken up with PGCIL.

12.10 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that they would look into the issue raised by KPTCL.

12.11 MS I/c, SRPC said that the crux was that data availability needed to be ensured by

each & every constituent with or without AMR in place.

12.12 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that there were some practical difficulties as the

meters were scattered throughout the grid. Slippages were bound to happen. The

Regulations provide for bringing out UI Statement etc. as per a strict time schedule.

It would be advantageous if the scheme could be recommended for approval to be

funded through PSDF. This would help SRLDC in carrying out its works in a better

manner.

12.13 GM, SRLDC informed that in Northern Region the scheme had been implemented

by PGCIL.

12.14 SE-I, SRPC informed that as regards PSDF a number of Sub-Committees had

been formed and once the modalities were formalized, the scheme could be

considered for taking up for funding through PSDF after SRPC approval.

12.15 After deliberation, TCC observed that the requisite data should reach SRLDC in a

timely manner as per IEGC Regulations. Any problems/handicaps in delayed

transmission of data should be sorted out and readings should be made available

to SRLDC in timely manner.

13. IEGC RELATED ISSUES

13.1 Restricted Governor Mode of Operation (RGMO) of Generating Units

13.1.1 In the OCC meetings, SRLDC had informed that NLDC had been submitting

the status report of RGMO in various regions to Hon’ble CERC on a monthly

basis. It had been noted in 54th OCC Meeting that only about 2340 MW had

been put on RGMO against the requirement of 24510 MW. SRLDC was also

monitoring RGMO in line with the provisions of IEGC. Utilities had been


requested to self certify readiness of the units in RGMO in the new format on a

fortnightly basis.

13.1.2 Generators had been requested to apprise the Committee of the RGMO status

in line with IEGC Regulation. Further the Compliance Report needs to be

communicated to the Hon’ble Commission.

13.1.3 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC pointed out that the response of the generating

units was not adequate as sharp frequency excursions were observed during

grid incidences endangering the security. Generators had been requested to

implement RGMO or approach Hon’ble CERC for exemption. In case the

situation did not improve, SRLDC may be constrained to go to CERC as the

RGMO response from generators was essential for smooth grid operation.

Generators should ensure that RGMO is in service as per IEGC clause 5.2(f).

He said that All India monthly report was also being submitted to CERC through

NLDC.

13.2 Automatic Demand Management Schemes

13.2.1 Clause 5.4.2 (d) of the IEGC implemented w.e.f. 3rd May 2010 is reproduced

below:

“The SLDC through respective State Electricity Bards/Distribution Licensees shall also formulate and implement state-of-the-art demand management schemes for automatic demand management like rotational load shedding, demand response (which may include lower tariff for interruptible loads) etc. before 01.01.2011, to reduce overdrawal in order to comply para 5.4.2 (a) and (b). A report detailing the scheme and periodic reports on progress of implementation of the schemes shall be sent to the Central Commission by the concerned SLDCS.”

13.2.2 The IEGC set time frame for implementation of the Automatic Demand

Management Schemes was 01.01.2011. It was noted that the state-of-art

demand management scheme is not limited to rotational load shedding. Other

demand response measures like low tariff for interruptible loads, time of day

metering etc. could also be envisaged. Constituents had been requested to

initiate action individually/jointly to identify and implement measures other than

load shedding.

13.3 Load Shedding Scheme for overdrawing constituents at frequency less than 49.5 Hz

13.3.1 In the 14th SRPC meeting, constituents had agreed to implement the load

shedding scheme for overdrawing constituents at frequency less than 49.5 Hz

with the following quantum: 31Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

Sl.No. Constituents Load Relief 1 Andhra Pradesh 450 MW 2 Karnataka 350 MW 3 Kerala 125 MW 4 Tamil Nadu 650 MW 5 Puducherry 25 MW

13.3.2 APTRANSCO vide letter dated 27.10.2010 had informed Hon’ble CERC that a

quantum of 800 MW had been identified and tested for remote tripping from

SLDC. TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 28th October 2010 had informed that

radial load relief scheme for 581 MW has been made operational for tripping

from SLDC from 26.10.2010. TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 15th April 2011

had informed that 647 MW of feeders were connected to SCADA under

regulatory measures. Feeders for remaining quantum of 79 MW would be

arranged shortly. KSEB vide letter dated 7th February 2011 had informed that

125 – 250 MW of feeders had been identified for unscheduled load shedding.

Electricity Department, Puducherry vide letter dated 14th January 2011 had

informed that they had initiated action in this regard. In the OCC meetings,

KPTCL had informed that they were finalizing the scheme in consultation with

the DISCOMs and the scheme was likely to be finalized by end of February. In

the OCC meetings, it had been noted that in certain instances during

overdrawal at low frequency, the relief was not forthcoming as required.

Constituents had been requested to implement the scheme at the earliest

wherever due. Constituents had also been requested to confirm the operational

healthiness of the scheme so that load shedding is carried out first by the

overdrawing constituents.

13.4 Arranging interruptible loads in four groups

13.4.1 Clause 5.4.2 (e) of the IEGC implemented w.e.f. 3rd May 2010 is reproduced

below:

“In order to maintain the frequency within the stipulated band and maintaining the network security, the interruptible loads shall be arranged in four groups of loads, for scheduled power cuts/load shedding, loads for unscheduled load shedding, loads to be shed through under frequency relays / df/dt relays and loads to be shed under any System Protection Scheme identified at the RPC level. These loads shall be grouped in such a manner that there is no overlapping between different groups of loads. ….”

13.4.2 The issue was being regularly followed up by SRPC Secretariat/SRLDC in the

monthly OCC meetings. It had been noted that AP & Kerala had completed the

exercise. Puducherry & Tamil Nadu had initiated action in this regard.


Constituents had been requested to complete the exercise in line with the IEGC

provisions at the earliest.

13.5 Demand Estimation

13.5.1 Clause 5.3 (e) of the IEGC implemented w.e.f. 3rd May 2010 is reproduced

below:

“While the demand estimation for operational purposes is to be done on a daily/weekly/monthly basis initially, mechanisms and facilities at SLDCs shall be created at the earliest but not later than 1.1.2011 to facilitate on-line estimation of demand for daily operational use for each 15 minutes block.”

13.5.2 The IEGC set time frame for implementation of on line Demand Estimation was

01.01.2011.

13.5.3 In the OCC meetings it was noted that all the States had started furnishing 15

Minutes requirement to SRLDC. It was requested that the constituents may

please initiate action for the forecasting tool taking into account weather inputs

also.

13.6 Under Frequency Relay

13.6.1 SRP Committee in its 14th meeting had approved the following:

Three UFR set points to be revised to 48.8 Hz, 48.5 Hz & 48.2 Hz.

The UFR set points to be changed from 1st October 2010 simultaneously by all the States including Puducherry.

The SR Constituents had agreed for ensuring the effectiveness of UFR relief. SRPC Secretariat & SRLDC would coordinate for the same.

13.6.2 Confirmation in this regard had been received from all the States except

Puducherry. It had been noted that Puducherry had also initiated necessary

action in this regard and the UFRs were likely to be in place shortly. Enhanced

quantum confirmation had been received from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka &

Kerala. Enhanced quantum identification confirmation had been received from

Tamil Nadu.

13.7 Pending field inputs under ULDC scheme

13.7.1 SRLDC had informed that for monitoring of grid & running EMS package, the

availability of data at SLDCs/RLDC needed to be improved. In respect of

certain constituents, a number of SCADA inputs continued to remain pending

as furnished in Annexure-XIX. This issue had been regularly deliberated in the

OCC meetings also.


13.7.2 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC expressed concern over the pending inputs though

all the constituents in the 15th SRPC Meeting had agreed to complete the

pending works by November 2010. He pointed out that SRLDC may be

constrained to approach CERC in this regard as number of inputs were not

being attended, despite regular follow up. It was stated that as many as 1029

inputs were still pending despite discussions in OCC Meetings and follow up

meetings and correspondence. He requested the constituents to expedite

provision of complete & correct data and speech communication to SRLDC as

per IEGC clause 4.6.2. He said that SRLDC would not interact with ERLDC for

Talcher (Station, HVDC etc.) related pending inputs and PGCIL should make

available the inputs to SRLDC.

13.7.3 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that the issue could be deliberated and bilaterally

settled between SRTS-II & SRLDC.

13.7.4 MS I/c, SRPC requested all the utilities to complete the pending works by 31st

May 2011.

14. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM FOR EVACUATION OF POWER FROM SIMHADRI-II TPS (2x 500 MW) OF NTPC

14.1 Till 15th SRPC meeting, the Committee had noted the following:

APTRANSCO had accorded concurrence for Open Access through APTRANSCO network initially for a period of 5 (Five) years for evacuation of power from Simhadri Stage-II TPS (2x500 MW) of NTPC.

Further extension of Open Access would be reviewed with reference to transmission availability etc. Sufficient advance notice would be issued to the beneficiaries for planning and execution of alternate proposals.

Member (PS), CEA had pointed out that the charges should not be based on the ARR of the complete AP system, but only in respect of the identified APTRANSCO elements used for evacuation of Simhadri power. Beyond Vijayawada, the IST system was capable to transfer the share to the beneficiaries. This was necessary for the tariff to be reasonable and needed to be taken up suitably with APERC.

APTRANSCO had informed that the charges had been worked out based on ARR. The other constituents may like to take up the matter with APERC.

NTPC had informed that Hon’ble CERC had come out with a Draft Regulation for use of intervening transmission system of the State Grid for transmission of Inter-State power and NTPC may not be required to take up the issue with APERC. As per the PPA signed by the SR beneficiaries with NTPC, the sale of power shall be at the bus bars of the power station.


In the 13th & 14th SRPC meetings, it was noted that since the Regulations on the use of intervening system were likely to be notified by the CERC, there may be no necessity for approaching APERC in the present scenario.

In the 14th SRPC meeting, NTPC had pointed out that allocations had been finalized by MoP, the concerned beneficiaries should sign the Transmission Agreement with APTRANSCO. AP had stated that they would initiate action in this regard.

Subsequently, Hon’ble CERC had notified the Regulations on usage of Intervening Facilities vide Notification dated 23.09.2010.

NTPC had informed that since the unit was coming up in January 2011, the commercial issues, if any, amongst the beneficiaries needed to be settled at the earliest. There should be no evacuation constraints for Simhadri Stage-II on this account.

The Committee had observed that Simhadri-II power was being evacuated through CTU and APTRANSCO system. APTRANSCO had already agreed for the open access for evacuation of Simhadri-II power. As such, no evacuation issues of Simhadri-II power were foreseen. Commercial issues however needed to be settled at the earliest.

APTRANSCO had informed that there were no evacuation constraints in respect of APTRANSCO system and the issues could be settled amicably.

The Committee decided that the issues may be discussed and settled in the Special TCC meeting to be convened in first fortnight of December 2010.

14.2 The issue was deliberated in a special meeting of TCC of SRPC held on 3rd

January 2011 at Bangalore (extract from record notes of the special meeting

at Annexure-XX) wherein after deliberations, the following was noted:

Unit-1 is likely to be synchronized in February 2011 and put on CoD before March 2011.

All the issues needed to be settled at the earliest, so that Simhadri-II power is not bottled up.

In the absence of contract path with a single quantum, 100% of the approved injection may have to be considered for usage of AP system till the LILO is commissioned.

40% of approved injection had been suggested for open access of AP system after the LILO was commissioned (balance 60% through ISTS).

In view of certain observations of KSEB, the matter would be referred for further decision to SRPC.

14.3 The matter was taken up with the constituents vide SRPC letter dated 25th January

2011 (Annexure-XXI).


14.4 KSEB vide letter dated 18th April 2011 (Annexure-XXII) had furnished remarks

regarding evacuation scheme for Simhadri Stage-II power.

14.5 In the meeting, SRPC Secretariat pointed out that the issue regarding adoption of

either Intervening Regulations or APERC Long Term Open Access rates needed to

be finalised by the constituents. Issue regarding quantum of power for which

access was required also needs to be finalized. In the present grid scenario,

backing down at Vemagiri Complex may be required to be resorted to, to avoid any

evacuation issues for Simhadri Stage-II power.

14.6 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that transmission charges for 100% of Simhadri

Stage-II power was to be paid to APTRANSCO as per APERC rates even with

LILO. By suggesting that only 40% power would flow on AP network an attempt

had been made to implement PoC charges partially which was not acceptable to

APTRANSCO. He said that no backing down of Vemagiri generation would be

resorted to. He added that they had planned two transmission systems in the area.

He said that as could be seen AP had already accorded concurrence for Open

Access for a period of 5 years.

14.7 MD, TANTRANSCO pointed out that LILO at Vemagiri was for the purpose of back

up connectivity in time of contingency. Separate evacuation system was to be

implemented by APTRANSCO for generation at Vemagiri complex as per the

deliberations in the Standing Committee.

14.8 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the congestion was also due to number of

other reasons like Kundankulam units getting delayed in S2 region. Wind power

was being injected at Thirunelveli. He said that AP in respect of Kudankulam

evacuation beneficiaries would have to bear charges for any future augmentation

required after linked generation project was commissioned. He added that AP

would not share the cost of augmentation works.

14.9 MD, TANTRANSCO said that once the Kudankulam units were commissioned

TANTRANSCO may restrict the wind injection at Thirunelveli. Similar approach was

required to be adopted by APTRANSCO presently.

14.10 GM, SRLDC pointed out that as per IEGC and relevant regulations, LTOA

transactions would be having higher priority over STOA transactions in the

scheduling process.

14.11 MD, TANTANSCO said that while priority should be given to evacuate ISGS power

and other Short Term Open Access power on the ISTS system, it should not be


used to transfer State power in times of congestion.

14.12 Regional ED, NTPC informed that Unit I had achieved full load on 29th March 2011

while Commercial operation was expected in July 2011. LILO of Vemagiri-

Gazuwaka at Simhadri Stage-II was expected in May 2011. Some agreement

among the constituents needs to be finalized at the earliest to avoid any evacuation

issues for Simhadri Stage-II power.

14.13 It was decided to discuss the matter further in SRPC Meeting in view of non

convergence in TCC meeting.

15. OPERATION OF TALCHER-KOLAR HVDC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IN GROUND RETURN MODE

15.1 In the 12th SRPC meeting, Member (PS), CEA had informed that the Report

prepared by M/s PRDC (Consultant of Karnataka) had been received by CEA. The

Report needed to be analysed in detail. Prima facie, however it appeared that the

flows needed to be restricted to 150 MW in GRM. CEA had also contacted

M/s. BHEL regarding certain design parameters of the transformers. The reply

from M/s. BHEL was awaited in this regard. After obtaining reply from M/s. BHEL

and analysis of the PRDC report, CEA would examine the issue in totality and

recommend the safe flow value in GRM. Additional resistive blocking devices may

need to be provided for the adjoining transformers. Protection related issues also

needed consideration in this regard, as also the economic feasibility of blocking

devices in case the power order was to be raised.

15.2 Subsequently, the issue was also taken up with Member (PS), CEA by Member

Secretary, SRPC vide letter dated 31.08.2010.

15.3 In the 15th SRPC meeting, the following was noted:

PGCIL had informed that international experts could be hired for their opinion on the issue. They would be providing a list of International Experts for consideration of the Committee. CEA would also be involved during the process of engaging the International Experts etc.

KPTCL was of the view that CEA should be involved in finalization of the Consultant and other issues.

KPTCL had expressed that the safety of the equipment was of utmost importance to them. Neutral current beyond the permissible limits could not be allowed under any circumstances.

The Committee had suggested that PGCIL may furnish the list of International Experts to TCC/SRPC for consideration. The matter could be further dealt in consultation with CEA.

15.4 In the meeting, PGCIL furnished the CEA approved Terms of Reference (Annexure-

XXIII). 37Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

15.5 Director (Tr.), KPTCL pointed out that KPTCL was not involved in finalizing the

proposal/Terms of Reference.

15.6 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that the proposal/Terms of Reference were not frozen as

yet and KPTCL would be involved in finalizing the proposal. Any guidance/

feedback from KPTCL could be integrated in the scheme. There could be a Joint

Session with KPTCL in this regard.

15.7 Director (GO), APTRANSCO desired that the duration & cost of the study etc

needed to be furnished to the constituents.

15.8 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that tentative cost was around `90 lakhs which

would not be passed on to constituents.

15.9 TCC recommended that the proposal/Terms of Reference should be finalized in

consultation with KPTCL.

16. PROGRESS OF BUS/LINE REACTORS TO BE COMMISSIONED IN SR 16.1 Bus/Line reactors are to be commissioned by the SR constituents as identified in

the 22nd Standing Committee Meeting on Power System Planning of Southern

Region, and also approved in the 4th SRPC meeting held on 7.6.2007.

16.2 The updated information is furnished in the Table below:

Bus Reactors

38

Sl. No. Bus Name Status NTPC 1. Ramagundam By Oct. 2011

2. Simhadri By Oct. 2011

NPCIL3. Kaiga Commissioned on 10.01.2011 by PGCIL

NLC 4. Neyveli-Expn. By Aug. 2011/Sep. 2011. NLC informed

that both the reactors would be provided at TS-II switchyard. 5. Neyveli TS-II

KPCL 6. Raichur TPS By Dec. 2011

KPTCL7. Talaguppa

By Mar. 2012

8. Davanagere

9. Nelamangala

10. Hoody

APTRANSCO 11. Kurnool By Aug. 2011

12. Vizag By June 2011


Line Reactors

Sl. No. Name Status

APTRANSCO 1. Hyderabad By July 2011

16.3 GM, SRLDC said that the bus reactor at Ramagundam, NTPC could be provided

on Bus Section 1 or 2 instead of Bus Section 3 or 4. This would facilitate black

start mock exercise for availing start up power from WR through AC bypass of

HVDC, Bhadravathi. Further, he requested all the constituents to commission the

bus/line reactors as approved by the Standing Committee without further delay.

16.4 Regional ED, NTPC said that he would assess progress in the field and take

necessary action.

16.5 GM, SRLDC also said that 50 MVAR line reactors on 400 kV Guttur-Birenahalli – I

at Guttur S/S and 400kV Nelamangala-Hiriyur – II at Nelamangala were not being

rectified and KPTCL was expressing that these reactors were not required. The

Standing Committee had recommended additional reactors in addition to the line

reactors at Guttur & Nelamangala.

16.6 CEE (LD), KPTCL said that the line reactors had been provided earlier, since the

line lengths were more than 250 Kms. As per the field input, the line reactors at

these places were not required since the line lengths had reduced considerably.

16.7 GM, SRLDC said that KPTCL may need to take this issue with Standing

Committee.

17. GENERATION LEVEL AT NPCIL UNITS

17.1 NPCIL stations were constrained to run their units at lower PLFs due to fuel

shortage. The six units in the Southern Region are being operated at lower

capacity. In the 15th SRPC meeting, NPCIL had informed that KGS generation

level had improved to about 70% while MAPS was around 65%. Kaiga units (I to

IV) would be generating at about 70% which was likely to be enhanced to about

80% by March 2011. NPCIL was expediting the supply of indigenous fuel which

would help enhance the load factor of the plants. 2-3 Mines had been identified

and action had been initiated.

17.2 In the meeting, ACE, NPCIL informed that generation levels would be maintained at

around 65-70% because of low availability of fuel.


18. IDENTIFICATION OF STRETCHES WHERE INSULATORS ARE TO BE REPLACED DUE TO POLLUTION/FOG/SEA WATER

18.1 A High Level Committee constituted to examine the disturbance which occurred on

27th January 2007 in Northern Region had suggested replacement of insulators

on lines running through polluted areas.

18.2 There were certain areas in the region which are highly polluted, fog prone, coastal

areas etc. in which need based replacement may need to be taken up on a

continuous basis to improve transmission availability. The need for taking

appropriate remedial action was also highlighted in the Protection Sub-Committee

Meetings.

18.3 TCC suggested that Transmission Companies sustain/expedite insulator

replacements in the identified sectors prone to failure and progress made in this

regard.

19. STATUS OF NEW GENERATING SCHEMES

19.1 SRPC had noted that updated information on status of new generating schemes is

useful in planning the load generation balance for future. It would also help in

identifying possible bottlenecks and initiating necessary corrective action in time.

The updated information as furnished by the constituents is at Annexure-XXIV.

19.2 The constituents were requested to furnish the updated information on a regular

basis to SRPC Secretariat.

20. COST SHARING OF TRANSMISSION CHARGES OF ER-SR INTER-REGIONAL LINK – 2X500 MW GAZUWAKA HVDC

20.1 KSEB vide letter dated 17th January 2011 (Annexure-XXV) had stated that

considering changed pattern of power flow since July 2010, sharing of cost of

transmission line had to be reviewed. It may be shared between ER & SR

beneficiaries in the ratio of 50:50, similar to other inter-regional links.

20.2 TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XII) had pointed

out that sharing of Charges of Jeypore-Gazuwaka back to back pole may be

shared at the ratio of 50:50 by SR constituents and ER constituents as the pole

was being used for both export as well as import for the past one year.

20.3 In the meeting, it was noted after discussions that as per the computations posted

on website by NLDC, 50% charges of the link would be shared by NEW grid in the

PoC regime and 50% by SR grid.


21. POWER FLOW ON 220 KV CHIKKODI-KOLHAPUR LINE

21.1 In the 14th SRPC Meeting, the Committee had approved the methodology proposed

by SRLDC with reference to scheduling and accounting of power flow on the 220

kV Chikkodi-Kolhapur line. It was also noted that ATC declared by the States for

Chikkodi-Kolhapur line will also be considered for declaring the ATC of inter-

regional link.

21.2 A Meeting between WRPC, WRLDC, MSETCL, SRLDC, KPTCL & SRPC was held

on 2nd February 2011 to discuss issues of operationalising 220 kV Chikkodi-

Kolhapur line. It was noted that there were some impediments in the scheduling

process, especially with respect to Power Exchanges. It was therefore decided

that SRPC would be apprised of the problems in this regard. After SRPC

concurrence, SRLDC could further take up the matter with Hon’ble CERC seeking

exemption from inter-regional ATC etc.

21.3 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC said that the matter may be taken up by SRPC

Secretariat with Hon’ble CERC.

21.4 Constituents pointed out that the issue was of operational nature with impact on

ATC and SRLDC may take up the issue on behalf of the constituents in the interest

of the SR grid.

21.5 After deliberations, TCC recommended that SRPC Secretariat may take up the

issue for exemption from Inter-regional ATC etc with Hon’ble CERC. SRLDC would

render necessary assistance in this regard.

22. SHUTDOWN OF INTER REGIONAL LINKS

22.1 In view of the constraints faced by the constituents during the recent bipole

shutdown of Talcher-Kolar HVDC link during the high demand month of January

2011, OCC had recommended that shutdown of Talcher-Kolar and also other inter-

regional links should be availed by PGCIL only during the period July – December.

Further, Talcher-Kolar shutdown should be planned during shutdown of Talcher

Stage-II units.

22.2 In the meeting, ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that they would be availing shutdown

of Talcher-Kolar link every year during November. Other inter-regional link and

critical link’s shutdown would be planned during July to December in each year.

22.3 TCC observed that outage of one unit at Talcher should be linked with the outage of

Talcher-Kolar HVDC pole in November each year. Regional ED, NTPC assured

that NTPC would consider the same while finalizing the outage schedule.


22.4 GM, SRLDC stated that the planned outage of the inter-regional links would be

availed in coordination with NLDC, other RLDCs and concurrence in OCC of

respective RPC. He also added that the request for shutdown should be

communicated three months in advance to SRLDC.

23. SHUTDOWN OF 400 kV VIJAYAWADA-NELLORE LINE

23.1 It had been noted in the OCC Meetings that AP had requested shutdown of 400 kV

Vijayawada-Nellore D/C line during Shivarathri festival. It had been informed to AP

that they should examine alternate options to avoid shutdown of 400 kV

Vijayawada-Nellore D/C line in future especially since new generators including

Simhadri – II were coming up in that area and this line was very critical in

evacuating power to S2 area.

23.2 APTRANSCO vide letter dated 22nd March 2011 (Annexure-XXVI) had suggested

laying of cable by PGCIL as a regional scheme for safe passage of chariot on the

eve of Shivarathri festival to avoid LC on 400 kV Vijayawada-Nellore DC line every

year.

23.3 In the meeting, Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that some mitigation measure for

the affected section could be provided as a Regional Scheme to avoid shutdown of

the critical link. He said that a field visit by Power Grid would be of immense help in

understanding the ground reality. He hoped that some long term measure would be

devised to avoid perennial problem.

23.4 PGCIL informed that laying of cable may have significant technical/cost implications

besides requiring a substation to be put. Solution like providing additional members/

higher towers / additional towers could be examined.

23.5 ED, SRTS-I, PGCIL said that they would evolve a technical solution for this issue

under a small package of “System Strengthening” and put up to TCC/SRPC.

24. STRATEGY FOR JOINT PURCHASES

24.1 In the 15th SRPC Meeting, it was noted that a common strategy for joint purchases

by SR constituents could be evolved to gain price advantage and negate the price

variations for the same power by the traders. It had been suggested that the

matter be deliberated by the OCC and recommendations put up to TCC/SRPC.

24.2 The issue was deliberated in the 54th OCC Meeting. The views of the constituents

are enclosed as Annexure-XXVII.


24.3 In the Special TCC meeting held on 03.01.2011 TCC had observed that the joint

purchases would be difficult as number of issues were involved.

25. INTEGRATED SCHEDULING OF TALCHER STAGE-I & STAGE-II

25.1 MS, ERPC had brought out the following issues:

Recently when coal supply to Talcher STPS was affected due to disruption of rail movement in Talcher area affecting receipt of coal from mines. This had resulted into severe coal shortage and shutting down all Talcher units except Unit-IV on 22.02.11. Under such critical cases, there is a need to consider the two stages as a single station and notionally share the MW lost due to such shutdown. This will also help NTPC to run their units in an economic and efficient manner and both the regions will be benefited from availability of the units.

He had proposed that whenever one unit of either Stage-I and Stage-II is under planned maintenance or shortage due to coal shortage, 1/3rd of that unit capacity of ER and 2/3rd of that unit capacity of SR be deemed as under maintenance.

25.2 In the meeting, TCC recommended that existing practice should continue.

25.3 It was noted that the switchyard of the stages (Talcher I & II) are separate and there

was CERC Order regarding NLC TPS-II Stage-I & II for accounting separately

where similar case exists.

25.4 Director (GO), APTRANSCO expressed concern over NTPC’s method of

maintaining joint coal account and opined to keep coal account for both stages

separately. He pointed out that the coal accounting (imported & domestic) & coal

clubbing at Talcher Stage I & II needed to be sorted out as it had financial

implications. The issue had already been taken up with NTPC.

25.5 SE-I, SRPC said that the issue needed to be looked into keeping in view provisions

of the CERC (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009. He suggested that

APTRANSCO may like to take up the matter through Commercial Sub-Committee

so that it could be deliberated in detail. APTRANSCO agreed to take up this issue

for discussion in Commercial Sub-Committee.

25.6 Regional ED, NTPC pointed out that the coal linkage was common to both the

stages at Talcher.

25.7 Scheduling of Talcher STPS Stage-II 25.7.1 The issue regarding scheduling of Talcher-II was discussed in the 14th TCC /

15th SRPC Meetings. TCC had concurred with Commercial Sub-Committee

recommendations that scheduling of Talcher STPS-II be continued to be

carried out by SRLDC in accordance with the provisions of IEGC which allows

the same. It had further been emphasized that the scheduling of Talcher 43Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

Stage-II was to be carried out by SRLDC since the SR constituents were

having 90% share in the station along with a dedicated HVDC evacuation

system. It was also recommended that ERPC be informed accordingly on the

matter. The same had accordingly been communicated to MS, ERPC.

25.7.2 However, MS, ERPC had once again pointed out that Talcher Stage-II may be

considered for coordination by ERLDC as Talcher Stage-II runs at ER

frequency and thus contributes to frequency of ER system. He had also

suggested monitoring of entire capacity of Talcher by one RLDC for efficient

scheduling.

25.7.3 In the meeting, TCC recommended that the existing practice of scheduling

would continue.

26. GRID OPERATION

26.1 Achievements by Constituents Grid discipline displayed by Karnataka.

Grid discipline displayed by Andhra Pradesh, Kerala & Puducherry.

Judicious use of hydro reserves by the SR constituents during high frequency conditions enabling better storage.

Effective power purchase planning by Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Kerala.

More than 3000 MU of power purchase made by Tamil Nadu to improve the availability.

Effective planning by the SR constituents in utilizing the IPPs/CPPs power located in SR within the Region itself.

High PAFMs of NTPC units.

Black Start Procedure for Southern Region was updated by SRLDC with active cooperation of all the constituents.

Number of pending field inputs was attended by SR-I & SR-II, PGCIL, AP, TN & Kerala.

Bipole / Monopole shutdown of Talcher-Kolar HVDC link was made possible with well coordinated efforts and active cooperation from SRLDC, PGCIL, NTPC, all the Southern Region Utilities & SRPC Secretariat.

Ramagundam Islanding Scheme was made operational with sustained efforts from NTPC, APTRANSCO, PGCIL, SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat.

Reactive power document of SR was updated and released by SRLDC.

Power Supply Position Report (PSP) for SR was made web based by SRLDC.


Implementation of UFRs at the new set points and revised quantum by Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu.

Rectification of all the units at Kadamparai for pump mode operation and higher usage of pumps by Tamil Nadu.

26.2 Forced Outages of Thermal Units 26.2.1 The issue regarding high forced outages in thermal stations had been brought

to the kind attention of SRPC/TCC in the previous meetings. The forced

outages of the thermal units continue to be on the higher side as can be seen in

the Table below:

Month Minimum Maximum November 2010 2.31% 6.24% December 2010 0.84% 6.06% January 2011 0.25% 3.66% February 2011 0.96% 5.75% March 2011 1.97% 6.54%

26.2.2 MoP & CEA had expressed concern over the huge quantum of forced outages.

CEA had also advised RPCs to monitor that the planned maintenance

schedules are strictly adhered. Cases of long forced outages needed to be

analysed for reason, and timely action for expeditious restoration of generating

units were to be taken. It was brought to kind attention that as per revised

IEGC, a report on prolonged outages of generators or transmission facilities

was being submitted to Hon’ble CERC. RPCs were also submitting quarterly

reports to the Hon’ble Commission indicating deviation in outages (planned)

from the plan along with reasons. All concerned utilities were requested to

kindly adhere to the schedule contained in Annual Outage Plan and furnish the

necessary details.

26.3 Low Frequency Operation 26.3.1 The frequency of operation of the Southern Grid for the period under review is

given below:

Percentage of time when frequency was

Less than

49.0 Hz

49.0 Hz to 49.2 Hz

49.2 Hz to 49.5 Hz

49.5 Hz to

50.0 Hz

50.0 Hz to

50.2 Hz

More than

50.2 Hz

Month average

Hz

WithinIEGC range 49.5 Hz to

50.2 Hz

Nov. 2010 0.03 0.07 0.54 55.03 28.53 15.80 49.99 83.56

Dec. 2010 0.00 0.03 0.75 67.25 22.32 9.65 49.92 89.57

Jan. 2011 0.00 0.00 1.43 89.97 15.04 3.56 49.82 95.01

Feb. 2011 0.07 0.42 7.91 85.73 4.95 0.90 49.71 90.68

Mar. 2011 0.17 0.78 18.27 78.63 1.77 0.38 49.61 80.40


26.3.2 The issue regarding low frequency operation as also overdrawal at low

frequency has been under consideration of different forum of SRPC. The issue

had been further deliberated in the OCC meetings held during December 2010

– April 2011. During the period under review, Type ‘A’, Type ‘B’, Type ‘C’

messages & Type ‘D’ messages (Annexure-XXVIII) were issued to the

constituents by SRLDC. It had been noted that Karnataka & Kerala were

maintaining grid discipline. Issue regarding overdrawal at low frequency by

Tamil Nadu had been taken up by SRLDC & SRPC. As a follow up of the

directions of CERC Adjudication No.6/2009 dated 27th April, 2010 with regard to

overdrawal by TN at low frequency, meetings of TANTRANSCO, TANGEDCO,

SRPC Secretariat & SRLDC were held on 12th July 2010 & 28th September

2010. A number of action points were finalized in these meetings.

26.3.3 The Committee observed that grid discipline and grid parameters should be

maintained by all the constituents keeping in view the IEGC Regulations.

26.4 High frequency of operation

It may please be noted that SR grid had operated for more than 50.2 Hz for

15.80%, 9.65% & 3.56% of the time during the months of November 2010,

December 2010 & January 2011. High frequency was generally getting associated

with high voltages leading to opening of number of 400 kV lines which rendered the

system vulnerable. The uneconomical operation in high frequency range needed

to be curbed.

26.5 High frequency during load changeovers

The issue of high frequency during load changeovers was discussed in the OCC

Meetings. As discussed in the earlier TCC / SRPC Meetings, Karnataka and Tamil

Nadu were to complete their load changeover before 18 hrs while AP would

complete their load changeover between 1800 hrs to 1830 hrs. Further staggering

of loads was required to avoid high frequency operation.

26.6 Grid Events (November 2010 – March 2011) Frequency remained within IEGC range (49.5-50.2Hz) for 87.82% of

time. Frequency remained above 50.2 Hz for 6.00% of time. Frequency remained below 49.5 Hz for 6.08% of the time. Southern Region met a maximum demand of 31927 MW on 30th

March 2011 which was maximum till date.


Andhra Pradesh met a maximum demand of 12254 MW on 18th March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Karnataka met a maximum demand of 7984 MW on 07.01.2011 which was maximum till date.

Kerala Nadu met a maximum demand of 3119 MW on 30th March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Tamil Nadu met a maximum demand of 10670 MW on 19th February 2011 which was maximum till date.

Southern Region met a maximum day consumption of 735 MU during March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Andhra Pradesh met a maximum day consumption of 274 MU during March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Karnataka met a maximum day consumption of 175.7 MU during March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Kerala met a maximum day consumption of 57.8 MU during March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Puducherry met a maximum day consumption of 6.6 MU during March 2011 which was maximum till date.

Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu had imported 377 MU, 1691 MU, 171 MU & 1190 MU respectively inter-regionally through bilateral exchanges.

Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu & IPPs/CPPs exported 237 MU, 42 MU & 126 MU respectively inter-regionally through bilateral exchanges.

Utilities located in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala & Tamil Nadu imported 118 MU, 7 MU, 56 MU & 1084 MU respectively through Power Exchange.

Utilities located in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka Kerala & LANCO exported 237 MU, 435 MU, 8 MU & 123 MU respectively through Power Exchange.

Andhra Pradesh, Kerala & Tamil Nadu imported 526 MU, 276 MU & 985 MU respectively intra-regionally.

442 MW of wind mills were added to Tamil Nadu grid.

39 MW, unit-V at Priyadarshini Jurala HEP was commissioned on 09.11.2010 by APGENCO.

210 MW, unit-V at Rayalaseema TPP was commissioned on 31.12.2010 by APGENCO.

Unit IV of 220 MW at Kaiga GS was put on commercial operation w.e.f. 20.01.2011 by NPCIL.

Unit-I of Simhadri Stage-II (500 MW) was commissioned by NTPC on attaining 500 MW full load on 31.03.2011

Ramagundam Islanding Scheme was made operational w.e.f. 12:02 hrs of 16.12.2010.

Reactive power document of SR was updated and released on 24.12.2010 by SRLDC.


Power Supply Position Report (PSP) for SR was made web based w.e.f. 01.01.2011 by SRLDC.

100 MW & 25 MW additional power was allocated to Kerala & Puducherry from unallocated power of Southern Region by reduction of 125 MW of Andhra Pradesh by MoP. The revised allocations were implemented from 0000 hrs of 2nd March 2011.

Black Start Restoration Procedure 2011 Workshop was conducted by SRLDC on 23rd February 2011.

ATC/TTC Workshop was conducted by SRLDC on 28th February 2011.

“FOLD” Meeting through Video Conference was held on 4th March 2011.

Talcher-Kolar HVDC link was scheduled for 2500 MW (1.25 pu) for 10 hrs a day w.e.f. 26.03.2011.

Talcher-Kolar HVDC was scheduled for 2200 MW (1.10 pu) for 5 hrs a day w.e.f. 01.04.2011.

220 kV D/C line – Brahmanakotkur – Mayale (21.24 ckm) charged on 06.01.2011 by APTRANSCO.

220 kV LILO to 220 kV Sadasivapet from 132 kV Sadasivapet-Singore line (4.60 ckm) charged on 29.01.2011 by APTRANSCO.

230 kV S/C line on DC towers from the proposed 230 kV Valathur SS to 230 kV Paramakudi was radially energized on 22.01.2011 from Valathur end by TANTRANSCO.

230 kV S/C line from Mettur TPS Stage-III to Malco (8.13 ckm) was energized on 19.01.2011 by TANTRANSCO.

220 kV line, Narendra SS – MK Hubli SS (34 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV LILO of Mysore-Shimoga line (28 ckm) at Hassan (Shanthigram) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV line, Narendra 400 kV SS – Ghataprabha (191 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV LILO of Hootagalli – TK Halli – Vagamangala (3 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV line, Varahi-Shimoga (9 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 V line, Peenya-NRS (8 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV circuit, Anandarao Circle – Nimhans – HAL (17 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

220 kV line, Narendra-KIDAB (4 ckm) commissioned in December 2010 by KPTCL.

Kothagudem-Khammam 400 kV D/C line (67.755 Km) and two Nos. of 400 kV Bay extension at Khammam S/S were charged on 07.03.2011 by APTRANSCO.


220 kV LILO to 400 / 220 / 132 kV Gajwel S/S from location No.81 of existing Malkaram-Minpur line of 79.6 Km was charged on 19.03.2011 by APTRANSCO.

2x50 MVA, 230/33 kV Sadayapalayam S/S was commissioned on 28.03.2011 by the Wind generators in Tamil Nadu.

1x100 MVA additional transformer was commissioned at Alagarkoil 230/110 kV S/S on 14.02.2011 by TANTRANSCO.

1x100 MVA additional transformer was commissioned at Oragodom 230/110 kV S/S on 16.03.2011 by TANTRANSCO.

230/110 kV Alundur S/S was enhanced from 50 MVA to 100 MVA and was commissioned on 30.03.2011 by TANTRANSCO.

315 MVA, 220/110 kV, Mayale SS charged on 06.01.2011 by APTRANSCO.

Shahabad SS after augmentation from 1x100 MVA to 2x100 MVA was commissioned on 17.01.2011 by APTRANSCO.

Medchal SS after augmentation from 3x100 MVA to 1x160 + 2x100 MVA was commissioned on 31.01.2011 by APTRANSCO.

315 MVA, 440/220 kV 3rd transformer at Talaguppa was commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

2x150 MVA, 220/66 kV transformers at Nimhans were commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

2x150 MVA, 220/66 kV transformers at ‘A’ Station Compound were commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

2x100 MVA, 220/66 kV transformers at Ramanagar (Kothipura) were commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

1x100 MVA, 220/110 kV transformer at MK Hubli was commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

1x100 MVA, 220/110 kV transformer at Ghataprabha was commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

1x150 MVA, 220/66 kV transformer at Vagamangala was commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

2x150 MVA, 220/66 kV transformers at East Division Compound were commissioned in January 2011 by KPTCL.

Mehboob Nagar SS after augmentation from 3x100 MVA to 1x60 + 2x100 MVA was charged on 06.11.2010 by APTRANSCO.

200 MVA, 220/110 kV SS at Pothencode was commissioned on 27.11.2010 by KSEB.

50 MVA, 230/33 kV third transformer was commissioned on 02.11.2010 at Amuthapuram by TANTRANSCO.

100 MVA, 230/110 kV additional transformer at Kodikuruchi was commissioned on 02.11.2010 by TANTRANSCO.

Cuddapah SS after augmentation from 2x100 MVA to 3x100 MVA was commissioned on 24.12.2010 by APTRANSCO.


100 MVA, 230/110 kV transformer at Hosur SS was commissioned on 29.12.2010 by TANTRANSCO.

Second 63 MVAR, 400 kV switchable line reactor at Udumalpet SS under Kudankulam ATC was commissioned on 26th February 2011 and put on commercial operation w.e.f. 1st March 2011 by PGCIL.

400 kV 63 MVAR switchable line reactor along with associated bays & equipment at Udumalpet 400/230 kV SS under Kudankulam transmission system has been commissioned at 1644 hrs of 27.11.2010 and put on commercial operation w.e.f. 01.12.2010 by PGCIL.

26.7 Hydro Availability The storage levels in the major hydel reservoirs as on 31st March 2011 is furnished

in Table below:

Energy storage in major hydel reservoirs At FRL

(in MU)

Inflows during Apr.2010 - Mar. 2011 (in MU)

Storage as on31st Mar. 2011

Anticipated Actuals MU % ANDHRAPRADESH Jalaput Srisailam

495

-

684

2837

833

5528

485 704

98 -

KARNATAKALinganamakki Supa +B ‘Halli +T’Halli

4547 3152

5130 2275

4984 2172

1983 1023

44 32

KERALA Idukki Pamba & Kakki Total Kerala

2190 916

4131

2325 1499 6539

2583 1644 6837

1048 466

1981

48 51 48

TAMIL NADU Nilgiris Total Tamil Nadu (excluding Mettur)

1504 2182

2094 4072

1799 3481

312 577

21 26

The hydro storage reservoir position as on 31st March 2011 was about 42% for the

Southern Region.

26.8 Grid Voltages

26.8.1 Following 400 kV nodes in the Region were facing high voltage situation:

Hyderabad, Ramagundam, Nagarjunasagar, Cuddapah, Vijayawada, Gooty, Gazuwaka, Thiruvananthapuram, Kolar, Guttur, Kaiga, Raichur & Vemagiri Gas Complex.

26.8.2 Following 400 kV nodes in the Region were facing low voltage situation:

Chennai, Bangalore, Mysore, Chittoor, Trichur, Nellore, Kalavindapattu, Almathy, Hosur

Measures to control the voltage situation were being discussed in the OCC

Sub-Committee Meetings.

26.8.3 GM, SRLDC requested cooperation of all constituents to reduce MVAR drawal

at Chennai, Bangalore, Mysore & Chittoor areas and maintain voltage profile as

per IEGC.


26.9 VAR absorption/injection by Generators within capability limits

The issue regarding VAR absorption/injection was discussed in various forums of

SRPC. Hon’ble CERC Order dated 23.12.2009 merited attention in this regard. It

was stated in this Order that all agencies need to provide required reactive

compensation avoiding the need for exchange of reactive power to/from ISTS and

maintain ISTS voltage within specific range. Whenever the grid conditions require

MVAR absorption/injection, capability of various generators could be utilized in

improving the voltage condition of the grid. Central Generating Stations and State

Generators need to be in a position to absorb/inject VARs as per grid requirements.

26.10 Pump mode operation of Srisailam units

APGENCO letter dated 12th January 2011 regarding operation of Srisailam Left

Bank Power House units (6 x 150 MW) in pump mode is enclosed as Annexure-

XXIX. APGENCO was requested to expedite.

26.11 Installation of Shunt Capacitors

26.11.1 In the meeting, Chief Engineer, KPTCL informed that they had installed total

88.36 MVAR capacitors during the year 2010-11.

26.11.2 The progress of installation of capacitors by the constituents during the year 2010-11 is given in Table below:

(Figures in MVAR) Carry over of 2009-10 Installed during the year

2010-11 Andhra Pradesh 55 0 Karnataka 98.2 88.36 Kerala 10 0 Tamil Nadu 101 0 Total 264.2 88.36

26.11.3 In the meeting of Task Force constituted by Hon’ble CERC, it had been

suggested that proposals for reimbursement of 20% of the cost for installation

of capacitors in the Region be put up for funding from PSDF (Reactive Pool

Account). In this context, it may please be noted that the report regarding

requirement of capacitors for the year 2010-11 had been circulated by SRPC

Secretariat. In the 14th & 15th SRPC meetings, constituents had been requested

to furnish concrete proposals to SRPC Secretariat for recommending the same

to the Task Force. In this regard, KSEB vide letter dated 4th January 2011

(Annexure-XXX) had forwarded an estimate for `250 lakhs for installation of

total 10 MVAR capacitors at three 66 kV substations.


27. DEMAND VARIATION (Peak Vs Off-peak)

27.1 The issue regarding large variation between minimum and maximum demands had

been under the consideration of TCC/SRPC. The issue was also being discussed in

the OCC meetings. The following was observed with regard to the period from

November 2010 to March 2011:

Month Minimum to Maximum Demand Variation %

Andhra Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Tamil

Nadu Puducherry Southern Region

November 2010 Highest 30.32 50.99 50.59 40.13 49.38 43.00 Date 8th 10th 29th 8th 10th 8th Lowest 12.76 31.32 34.87 18.88 17.38 23.25 Date 28th 5th 16th 14th 14th 17th Average 21 41 43 26 28 31

December 2010 Highest 38.69 45.01 55.19 38.58 35.24 34.02 Date 8th 13th 6th 6th 7th 8th Lowest 19.20 23.90 40.69 21.56 20.26 21.60 Date 2nd 26th 31st 12th 1st 25th Average 27 37 45 28 29 27

January 2011 Highest 33.32 32.48 50.05 31.52 35.22 24.69 Date 10th 7th 24th 17th 27th 17th Lowest 22.18 17.09 38.49 15.24 17.50 14.57 Date 22nd 10th 13th 23rd 26th 30th Average 27 24 43 25 28 20

February 2011 Highest 24.95 32.16 46.51 24.56 37.78 19.19 Date 6th 26th 14th 3rd 22nd 28th Lowest 11.70 13.73 35.56 12.78 16.84 11.99 Date 2nd 5th 19th 13th 20th 20th Average 20 22 41 19 27 15

March 2011Highest 27.42 28.16 43.72 17.93 42.13 17.56 Date 20th 1st 14th 21st 21st 1st Lowest 11.25 12.19 31.14 6.54 14.64 7.12 Date 9th 5th 26th 13th 27th 6th Average 18 18 38 14 25 11

Note: Highest & lowest figures for the month have been computed based on the daily values during the month.

27.2 Constituents were requested to implement DSM measures and share the

information with other constituents for mutual benefit.

28. SCHEDULING OF SIMHADRI – II

28.1 The following had been noted:

As per clause 6.4.2 (a) of CERC (IEGC) Regulations, 2010, RLDC will carry out scheduling of Central Generating Stations (excluding stations where full share is allocated to host State).

Simhadri-II generating station of NTPC is a Central Generating Station with share to beneficiaries in Southern Region. As such, SRLDC shall coordinate the scheduling of the station. Scheduling and dispatch procedure would be as per the prevailing CERC Regulations / Orders.


The injection of Simhadri-II will be measured at all outgoing feeders. In case LILO of 400 kV Gazuwaka-Vemagiri is not commissioned, the measurement will be only at bus section between Simhadri-I & II.

Accounting would be carried out at the regional level. Hence, settlement of UI of Simhadri-II would be with SR pool. SR REA will contain the details of scheduled energy of the beneficiaries from Simhadri-II and also availability of the station for billing purposes.

28.2 The issue was deliberated in the 15th Commercial Sub-Committee meeting and the

following was noted:

DGM (Comml.), NTPC had opined that scheduling of both Simhadri Stage-I & II needed to be carried out by SRLDC in line with clause 6.4.2 (c) (iv) of IEGC Regulations, 2010. He had informed that 1st unit of Simhadri Stage-II would be operational from first week of March 2011. The methodology for accounting should also be firmed up for the scenario of one unit of Stage-II being in commercial operation, while the second unit of Stage-II injecting infirm power.

SRPC Secretariat had informed that there appeared to be no difficulty in accounting Simhadri Stage-II power. However, In case NTPC had any concern about accounting of 2nd unit (Stage-II) infirm power injection etc., it could bring out the issues for discussion in the next Commercial Committee meeting.

SRLDC had clarified that Simhadri Stage-II being a shared project only fell under their control area while Stage-I fell under APSLDC. Other constituents also concurred to this observation of SRLDC.

PGCIL had informed that the LILO of 400 kV Gazuwaka-Vemagiri was likely to be commissioned by the end of March 2011.

After deliberation it was noted that Simhadri Stage-II would be under the control area of SRLDC. Scheduling and dispatch procedure would be carried out as per the prevailing CERC Regulations / Orders.

28.3 In the meeting, it was noted that Simhadri Stage-I would be scheduled by APSLDC

while Simhadri Stage-II would be scheduled by SRLDC.

28.4 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that SRLDC & APSLDC should mutually

cooperate for information interchange as Stage-I & Stage-II were to be scheduled

by APSLDC & SRLDC respectively. The issue was of significance as the UI was to

be computed separately.

29. OPERATION OF TALCHER-KOLAR HVDC LINK IN EXTENDED MODE

29.1 The following was deliberated in the 57th OCC Meeting held on 9th March 2011:

TNEB had suggested that Talcher-Kolar be scheduled upto 2500 MW to avail power on schedule basis (and not on UI) for 10 hrs a day.


PGCIL had pointed out that the rated capacity of the link was 2000 MW. This had been noted in the earlier SRPC/TCC meetings. 500 MW was only short term capacity which could be utilized only for contingency.

It was noted that the link could be loaded upto 2500 MW for 10 hrs a day provided certain conditions like ambient temperature etc. were satisfied.

SRLDC suggested that they could schedule upto 2400 MW if PGCIL & the constituents reached some understanding. Till that period the link would be scheduled for 2000 MW and 500 MW would be utilized to avail UI from other regions if power was available. In the present scenario, this additional quantum could be transferred through S1-S2 areas.

Constituents had concluded that if PGCIL agreed for extended mode of operation then the power could be scheduled between 0600 hrs and 1100 hrs and from 1700 hrs to 2200 hrs.

29.2 TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XII) stated the

following:

“During the 56th OCC Meeting held on 8th February 2011, the representative of PGCIL intimated that the Talcher-Kolar HVDC line can be operated on extended mode of operation for 10 hrs a day. This unutilized capacity should be beneficially used for importing power through STOA and collective transactions at least during the lighting peak and morning peak hours. This will improve the SR grid frequency during the high demand period which in turn ensures grid frequency.”

29.3 In the Special TCC Meeting held on 29th March 2011 it was noted that Talcher-

Kolar would be scheduled in enhanced mode of operation of 2500 MW from 0500

hrs to 1000 hrs and 1900 hrs to 2400 hrs till the 15th TCC/16th SRPC meetings are

held. PGCIL would furnish the revised capacity in cases of contingency and

SRLDC would revise the ATC. PGCIL to consider the request on increased hours

(beyond 10 hrs) of Talcher-Kolar at enhanced capacity and revert back.

29.4 Subsequently, PGCIL had confirmed the operation of the link at 2200 MW between

0000 hrs to 0500 hrs.

29.5 In the meeting, MD, TANTRANSCO said that the extended mode should be

continued up to 15th June 2011. Director (Operation), PGCIL had accorded

approval for the same.

29.6 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that keeping in view the grid requirements and State’s

request, PGCIL had agreed for enhanced mode for a limited period of time. PGCIL

had further allowed the enhanced mode of operation upto 2200 MW for additional

5 hours. Ambient temperatures had increased to 40°C, hot spots had been

observed on the link and hence constituents should make reasonable requests

regarding sustained overloading of the link. 54Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

29.7 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the STOA application for the enhanced

capacity should be considered separately and should not be linked with the

applications made earlier. He said that SRLDC could be more transparent on this

aspect.

29.8 GM, SRLDC pointed out that new applications had been invited for the additional

margin. Separate communication to the States had also been addressed.

Telephone calls had also been made to the concerned Chief Engineers. Any

specific query by APTRANSCO would be clarified.

29.9 CEE (LD), KPTCL expressed concern over enhanced loading of Talcher-Kolar

HVDC link which was also affecting loads in Bangalore area. During the tripping of

the poles, adjoining areas in Karnataka system were getting seriously affected.

The loading of the line was to be restricted to 2000 MW. Karnataka should not

suffer due to overdrawal of other constituents. Karnataka had agreed for 2500 MW

flow only due to elections in TN and not on a sustained basis.

29.10 GM, SRLDC clarified that messages for restricting MVAR drawal and maintaining

adequate voltage profile at Nelamangala, Hoody, Somanahally, Kolar etc. were

issued to KPTCL. During such conditions, messages were also issued to

downstream States to curtail overdrawals.

29.11 MS I/c, SRPC suggested that keeping in view the requirements of TN, the

extended mode could be recommended upto 15th June 2011.

29.12 TCC recommended that the extended mode of operation could continue till 15th

June 2011 subject to system condition, ambient temperature etc.

30. RENOVATION OF SRPC SECRETARIAT COMPLEX

SRPC had kindly approved `1 Crore in its meeting held on 06.03.2009 and further

`11.9 lakhs in the 14th SRPC meeting for carrying out renovation works in SRPC

Complex. The status of progress of renovation works is furnished in Annexure-XXXI.

31. FREQUENT FEEDING OF FAULT BY POWERGRID ICTs FOR LONGER DURATION

31.1 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XVI) proposed the item

for discussion. It was stated that ICTs at PGCIL substations were feeding fault

very frequently and for longer duration mainly because of fault in downstream

system not being cleared on time. The tripping details for the last six months had

also been enclosed. Few corrective actions had been suggested so that faults in

downstream system were cleared on time. 55Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

31.2 In the meeting, MD, TANTRANSCO informed that ICTs were tripping much earlier

than agreed time for zone II thus denying opportunity to the downstream system to

clear the fault. He added that PGCIL were not furnishing the tripping details. Thus

there were a number of trippings of ICTs. TANTRANSCO had already

implemented bus bar protection, carrier aided tripping etc in its system. This issue

was to be discussed in detail as there were a number of interruptions.

31.3 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that settings had been enhanced to 300-350 mSec.

A comprehensive study of 220 kV protection system was required to be urgently

carried out as it was affecting the health of the transformers. The protection

system of the States was not clearing the faults and in 33 instances PGCIL

transformers had fed the downstream faults.

31.4 Director (GO), APTRANSCO endorsed the views of TANTRANSCO and pointed

out that all the transmission utilities were responsible and experienced.

APTRANSCO had interacted with PGCIL and thereafter the set points in AP

system had been enhanced to 400 mSec by PGCIL. There was a need for

comprehensive view in this regard.

31.5 After deliberations, it was decided that a Special meeting of Protection Sub-

Committee would be held shortly to finalise set points to be adopted. It was also

noted that PGCIL (SRTS-I & II) would furnish the relay setting adopted by them in

their respective jurisdiction.

32. CERC REGULATIONS ON SHARING OF INTER-STATE TRANSMISSION CHARGES & LOSSES

32.1 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XVI) informed that STUs

had been requested to take advance action for putting in place requisite

infrastructure / facility for payment through RTGS and also make back to back

arrangement with the distribution companies. It had also been informed that

activity of signing of TSA / RSA shall commence immediately after approval of the

draft of the said document by Hon’ble CERC.

32.2 TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XII) had stated

that there were uncleared queries pending as given below:

Variability of wind is not discussed.

TAFM split up details should be provided.

Calculation of methodology should be demonstrated.

Nodal point (generation demand node) bus is not declared so as to carry out mock exercise.


32.3 In the meeting, Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that raising the bills by CTU to

STU on behalf of Discoms and further settlements with the Discoms by STU had

cost implications. CTU had also sought certain additional bank guarantees from

STU. In case of AP, the cost implication of this was around `2 Crore/year. They

had expressed their views to CERC staff last month who had appreciated their

views. AP was waiting for favourable consideration and revision of TSA. However,

AP was ready for implementation with systems in place.

32.4 Director (Tr.), KPTCL informed that they had filed a petition in the High Court

regarding implementation issues.

32.5 MS I/c, SRPC suggested TANTRANSCO may take up issues with NLDC

(Implementing Agency) regarding implementation of the regulation.

33. RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT OF HYDERABAD SUBSTATION

33.1 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XVI) informed that PGCIL

was going ahead with the proposal of utilizing the old 400 / 220 kV 315 MVA ICT

which was taken out of service w.e.f. 1st June 2010 as a spare transformer.

33.2 In the meeting, ED, PGCIL informed that the Hyderabad transformer would be

utilized at Vizag. The transformer being utilized at Vizag would be shifted to Cochin

as per the original plan. The entire expenses incurred in this regard would qualify

for ad cap under normal procedures.

33.3 Director (GO), APTRANSCO pointed out that the Vizag transformer feeds power to

steel plant. Hence the healthiness of the repaired transformer is to be ensured as

power supply to Steel Plants, Railways etc was very critical.

34. SUBMISSION OF SCHEDULE OF ASSETS OF REGIONAL GRID

34.1 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XVI) had informed that

CTU had submitted the schedule of assets of Regional Grid to SRPC in respect of

assets as on 31st March 2010.

34.2 MS I/c, SRPC informed that the schedule needed to be furnished directly to

Hon’ble Commission and the same had been communicated to PGCIL.

35. RESCHEDULING OF POWER BEYOND THE ESTIMATED TIME OF RESTORATION DURING FORCED OUTAGE OF STOA GENERATORS OF 100 MW & ABOVE AS PER IEGC

35.1 In the 58th OCC Meeting, the following was deliberated:


SRLDC had suggested the following with regard to revision of schedules of

STOA transactions in case of tripping of unit / station of 100 MW and above:

Request for revision of STOA transaction in case of unit tripping.

Only one revision is allowed.

Changes in the expected revival time and consequent revisions not allowed as per IEGC clause 6.5.19.

Jindal & Lanco unit trippings.

SRPC Secretariat had pointed out the following:

Regulation specifies that the generator shall immediately intimate the same (forced outage) along with the requisition for revision of schedule.

Regulation does not specify that only one revision could be allowed.

Regulation does not specify that the changes in expected revival time and consequent revisions are not allowed.

A case study of Lanco Kondapally for the period 03.05.2010 to 17.03.2011 was also presented wherein it was observed that while the average frequency during the tripping was 49.8 Hz, no change in schedule had been effected.

IEGC regulation 6.4.25 was also highlighted.

35.2 KPTCL vide letter dated 20th April 2011 (Annexure-XXXII) had proposed to discuss

this issue in the SRPC meeting.

35.3 In the meeting, CEE, KPTCL expressed concern over the problem being faced by

the State in respect of forced outage of STOA generators.

35.4 MS I/c, SRPC said that revision of STOA schedules of generators of 100 MW &

above should be carried out in event of forced outage. Multiple revisions should

also be allowed in line with the regulations.

35.5 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that revision of schedules in case of forced

outage should be carried out. He opined that if the schedules were not revised in

case of forced outage of a merchant plant with a capacity of say 500 MW, the state

utility would be in great trouble. This would assume greater significance as the

number of merchant plants were going to increase in the near future. SRLDC

cannot deny revisions. While this policy could be on the basis of an executive

order of POSOCO, it was not in accordance with Regulations.

35.6 GM, SRLDC said that as per provisions of IEGC 6.5.19 read with Para 43.10 &

43.11 of SOR of IEGC, SRLDC would be in a position to carry out only one

revision of STOA for reason of tripping of generating unit of 100 MW capacity


which is also a seller. In case the constituents needed further clarification, they

could approach Hon’ble CERC.

35.7 After deliberations, the constituents pointed out that the schedules needed to be

revised and multiple revisions may be allowed in line with regulations during forced

outage of STOA generator of 100 MW & above. SRLDC stated that only single

revision would be allowed only if the generator request for the same. It was

agreed that SRPC would decide future course of action.

36. COLLECTION OF SYSTEM OPERATION CHARGE OF POSOCO

36.1 KPTCL vide letter dated 28th April 2011 (Annexure-XXXIII) had informed that

KPTCL was not agreeable to be the nodal agency for collecting POSOCO System

Operation Fees & Charges from Distribution Licensees & POSOCO shall collect

the System Operation Charges (SOC) directly from the Distribution Licensees in

Karnataka.

36.2 In the meeting, CEE (LD), KPTCL said that Karnataka SLDC was not agreeable to

be the nodal agency on behalf of its Discoms.

36.3 Director (GO), APTRANSCO endorsed the views of KPTCL and pointed out that

the issue involved cost implications which needs to be addressed.

36.4 GM, SRLDC informed that they would sort out this issue bilaterally with KPTCL.

37. WAIVAL OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF UI CHARGES

37.1 KPTCL vide letter dated 28th April 2011 (refer Annexure-XXXIII) had raised certain

issues regarding interest levied on delayed payment of UI charges by KPTCL.

37.2 In the meeting, GM, SRLDC informed that they had not come prepared on this

issue, as the agenda was circulated only in the meeting.

37.3 SE-I, SRPC suggested that a small group comprising officers of KPTCL, SRLDC &

SRPC Secretariat could meet to sort out the issues and present details in the next

meeting.

37.4 TCC noted that a small group comprising KPTCL, SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat

would meet to sort out the issues.

38. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF OPGW BASED COMMUNICATION FOR CENTRAL SECTOR SS & GS OF SR

38.1 PGCIL had proposed the item (Annexure-XXXIV) to be discussed in the SRPC

meeting. Addition requirements of OPGW based communication system for Central

Sector substations & generating stations and other large generating stations of


Southern Region. It is mentioned that about 3196 Kms of fibre optic along with

terminal equipment is to be installed. The estimated cost is around `74 Crores.

38.2 In the meeting, MD, TANTRANSCO pointed out that TANTRANSCO had its own

OPGW. Requirement for only the missing links was therefore necessary.

TANTRANSCO & PGCIL would have to interact to assess the exact requirement.

38.3 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that the requirement of 3196 Kms of fibre optic

with an estimated cost of `74 Crores includes the cost of the pooling station meant

for merchant power plants. The cost apportionment aspects etc also needed to be

worked out.

38.4 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that they would circulate the details to the

constituents and a Special Meeting would be called by PGCIL.

39. PROCUREMENT OF SPARE 315 MVA, 400/220 KV INTER CONNECTING TRANSFORMERS FOR SR

39.1 PGCIL had proposed the item (refer Annexure-XXXIV) to be discussed in the

SRPC meeting. It was mentioned that procurement of 3 additional spare 315 MVA

400/220 kV ICTs, one each for every State may be approved.

39.2 In the meeting, Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that as STU they were regularly

purchasing 220/132 kV transformers and some spares were always in pipe line.

However 400 kV transformers were rarely purchased and there were virtually no

spares. He said that APTRANSCO was agreeable for procurement of three

additional spare ICTs for the region. He said that recently there was failure of one

315 MVA at transformer at Hyderabad and luckily one spare was available.

Otherwise the exercise of replacement would have taken one year or more. With

the spare transformer available replacement could be carried out in 20 days.

39.3 KPTCL, KSEB & TANTRANSCO maintained their stand for only one spare

transformer for the region.

39.4 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL said that the status on the health/age of the transformers in

Southern Region had been appraised in the earlier TCC/SRPC meetings and

requested the constituents to take favourable decision to maintain power supply

continuity and security to the Grid. He said that in the last ten years 18 transformer

failures had taken place in SR. Out of the present 70 transformers in the region,

around 30 transformers had completed 18-20 years. Other Regions had already

patronized spare transformers.

39.5 It was agreed to discuss the matter further in SRPC.


40. UNDER UTILISATION OF NTPC URS POWER

40.1 NTPC vide letter dated 25th April 2011 (Annexure-XXXV) had stated that in the last

financial year 2010-11, in spite of the prevailing power shortages, power generation

was not being utilized by SR beneficiaries to the full capacity available on NTPC

coal based stations. There was substantial under utilization to the tune of 1575

MU.

40.2 In the meeting, Regional ED, NTPC expressed concern over under utilization of

URS power. He had pointed out that the under utilization was not in the interest of

the power sector as a whole.

40.3 SRPC Secretariat presented the Study Report on URS power for the period April

2010 – March 2011 (Annexure-XXXVI).

40.4 Director (GO), APTRANSCO said that at times, NTPC units are injecting more

even at high frequency despite advise of SLDC. There would be temporary spells

of little low frequency during backing down of the units.

40.5 TCC noted that the capacity available was at mostly high frequency (above

49.7 Hz).

41. OPERATION OF 400 KV LINES UPTO SURGE IMPEDANCE DERIVED STEADY STATE LIMIT


that all 400 kV lines should be operated upto its surge impedance derived steady

State limit based on St. Claire Curve.

41.2 In the meeting, MD, TANTRANSCO said that Hosur-Salem and other 400 kV lines

should be operated upto its surge impedance derived steady State limit based on

St. Claire Curve.

41.3 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL expressed concern over the loading of single circuit 400 kV

line to 780 MW. He said that 750 MW on sustained basis was not as per the

design parameters and would adversely affect the health of the system. He

solicited cooperation of TANTRANSCO & SRLDC for limiting loading on 400 kV

Hosur-Salem line.

42. CLOSING OF 220/230 kV FEEDERS TO ENHANCE ATC BETWEEN S1 & S2 AREAS


that 230 kV Gummidipoondi-Sulurpet, 230 kV Thiruvalam-Chittoor & 220 kV


Kanniampeta-Kadakola are kept open stating various reasons. This has to be

closed to enhance the ATC between S1 & S2 areas.

42.2 In the meeting, MD, TANTRANSCO pointed out that 220 kV inter-State lines

between S1 & S2 needed to be closed to improve the ATC. Chittoor-Thiruvalam

line flow was being restricted by APTRANSCO.

42.3 Director (GO), APTRANSCO pointed out that there were issues relating to

upstream loading. Voltage at 400 kV Chittoor was only around 370 kV and TN was

also not able to control the drawal on the line. If TN adopts split bus operation at

Thiruvalam, the flow could be restricted. Further the line was kept open for some

period due to non availability of CT at Thiruvalam by Tamil Nadu. In the present

scenario, about 150 MW of flow could be allowed on this line.

42.4 MD, TANTRANSCO said that the CT had already been recommissioned and the

issue of loading needs to be reviewed.

43. PRIORITISATION OF UPCOMING 400 kV SYSTEM OF PGCIL


that prioritization of the upcoming 400 kV system has to be discussed and PGCIL

should be advised to carry out the construction works accordingly.

43.2 MD, TANTRANSCO said that LILO of Somanahalli-Salem at Hosur & some

intermediate solutions to enhance the ATC between S1 & S2 should be taken up

by PGCIL on priority basis. He also said that the new Somanahalli-Salem line

could be taken up on a priority basis.

43.3 ED, PGCIL said that the issues needed to be taken up by TANTRANSCO through

Standing Committee. However, the new Somanahalli-Salem line would take about

3½ years to fructify, since it involved the new 765 kV Salem S/S. Also there were

issues regarding land for the new 765 kV S/S.

43.4 MS I/c, SRPC pointed out that the strengthening/additional schemes to be taken

up on priority needed to be taken up by the constituents appropriately with

Standing Committee.

44. REVIEW OF PROGRESS OF WORKS ON NEW TRANSMISSION LINES AND SUBSTATIONS

44.1 The progress of works on the new 400 kV/230 kV transmission lines and

substations in the State Sector under construction in the Southern Region was

reviewed. The updated information based on the data furnished by the constituents

is at Annexure-XXXVII. 62Minutes of the 15h Meeting of TCC of SRPC held at Goa on 29.04.2011

44.2 The progress of works on the new transmission line and substations in the Central

Sector (POWERGRID) under construction in Southern Region was also reviewed.

The updated information is at Annexure-XXXVIII.

TCC noted the following: 45. SHIFTING OF STANDBY FREQUENCY METER FROM MAPS TO NLC TS-II

EXPANSION 45.1 In the 126th meeting of SREB, it was decided to reckon one SEM at Ramagundam

bus as the main meter and another at MAPS as check meter for the purpose of

measurement of regional frequency in connection with REA.

45.2 SRLDC vide letter dated 7th February 2011 had informed that at present the

standby SR frequency meter is identified as NP-4023-A (Loc. ID: MA-04) installed

at MAPS on 230 kV Acharapakkam feeder. Since the required time monitoring and

correction of the SEMs at MAPS was not being informed, it was proposed to

consider (Loc. ID: NE-21) Meter No.NP-5577-A installed on 400 kV side of GT-1 of

Neyveli TS-II Expansion as standby frequency meter. NLC TS-II Expansion would

monitor the time drift of the SEM and weekly report of the time correction/drift

furnished to SRLDC along with weekly SEM data. The main reason is to have the

Check Meter in the Southern part of the Regional Grid.

45.3 The matter was discussed in the 15th meeting of Commercial Sub-Committee held

on 22nd February 2011. After deliberations, the Committee agreed to consider

(Loc. ID: NE-21) Meter No.NP-5577-A installed on 400 kV side of GT-1 of Neyveli

TS-II Expansion as standby frequency meter with immediate effect.

46. CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN/BLACK START PROCEDURES

46.1 Crisis Management Plan is being monitored at the highest level in Government. It

was also highlighted in earlier meetings also that quarterly report on mock drills to

review the preparedness for crisis disaster situation in Power Sector be submitted

by the utilities. The utilities are to draw a schedule of mock drills. It was once

again requested that the concerned utilities may please furnish the required

information on a quarterly basis in the format given in Annexure-XXXIX to the

following E-mail addresses:

i) [email protected]

ii) [email protected]

iii) [email protected]

iv) [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]




46.2 Compliance Reports related to CERC (IEGC) Regulations 2010

CERC vide letter dated 15.10.2010 had informed that certain Compliance Reports

related to Regulations of IEGC 2010 were not being received. Member

Secretaries of RPCs had been requested to take up the matter at the RPC level

so that the compliance reports are submitted to CERC by the concerned as

stipulated in IEGC 2010. The reports were requested to be e-mailed to Chief

(Engg.), CERC (e-mail – [email protected]) & Joint Chief (Engg.), CERC

(e-mail – [email protected]). The details are given below:

Regulation No. Description Action by Remark/Status

4.8 Schedule of assets of Regional Grid CTU and other transmission licensees granted license by CERC shall submit annually to CERC by 30th September each year a schedule of transmission assets, which constitute the Regional Grid as on 31st March of that year indicating ownership on which RLDC has operational control and responsibility.

CTU & other inter-State transmission licensees.

Not being received from any of the transmission licenses including CTU

5.2 (f) All thermal generating units of 200 MW and above and all hydro units of 10 MW and above, which are synchronized with the grid, irrespective of their ownership, shall have their governors in operation at all times in accordance with the following provisions: ----------

GENCOs/RLDCs/ SLDCs

No compliance report so far submitted by any utility to CERC.

5.4.2 (d) ------ implement state-of-the-art demand management schemes ------ before 01.01.2011 ------ . A Report detailing the scheme and periodic reports on progress of implementation of the schemes shall be sent to the Central Commission by the concerned SLDC.

SLDC Since automatic demand management is to be implemented before 01.01.2011, status of implementation of the scheme may be submitted.

5.6.2 (b) Forced outages of important network elements in the grid shall be closely monitored at the RPC level. RPC shall send a monthly report of prolonged outage of generators or transmission facilities to the Commission.

RPC Monthly

Action plan & monthly progress for revival required to be furnished by the affected constituents.

5.7.4 (j) RPCs shall submit quarterly, half-yearly reports to Commission indicating deviation in outages from the plan along with reasons. These reports shall also be put up on the RPC website.

RPC Quarterly

Reasons for deviations to be furnished by the related constituents.





65

47. ONLINE SUBMISSION OF DAILY GENERATION REPORT/MONTHLY OPERATION REPORT BY THE GENERATING STATIONS

CEA had desired on line submission of Daily Generation Report / Monthly Generation

Report by the generating stations. On line entry of data had to be done from the

station itself to the data server in CEA through internet. Constituents had been

apprised of the requirement of the information to be furnished by the generators as

desired by CEA vide letter dated 27th December 2010 (Annexure-XL).

48. CHARGING OF 400 kV GIS AT KUDANKULAM NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT (KKNPP) FOR DRAWAL OF COMMISSIONING POWER

48.1 As per the discussions in the Special TCC Meeting held on 3rd January 2011,

Kundankulam Nuclear Power Project informed that they would draw power from the

Regional Grid on UI basis through 400 kV system for commissioning requirements.

This drawal would be upto commercial operation date of Unit-I. Kudankulam

Nuclear Power Project had submitted the relevant documents to SRLDC and

fulfilled the requirements. Accordingly, as per the CERC Regulations,

commissioning power was to be provided to Kudankulam at UI rates.

48.2 In the meeting, APTRANSCO expressed reservations regarding drawal of

commissioning of power at UI rates.

49. ISSUES RAISED BY TANTRANSCO

TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 18th March 2011 (refer Annexure-XII) had raised the

following issues.

a) Non payment of reactive charges and the long pending arrears between KSEB & TNEB.

b) Energy transaction between Western Region & Southern Region

50. DATE & VENUE OF THE NEXT TCC MEETING

It was decided to hold the next meeting of TCC one day prior to the 17th SRPC meeting.

51. VOTE OF THANKS

MS I/c, SRPC thanked Chairperson, TCC for the smooth conduct of the meeting

and also the delegates for their active participation. He also thanked NPCIL for the

excellent arrangements made for the meeting.

***

southern regional power committeemember shri t. anandha krishnan, se, electricity department,...

Documents