contentsthe list of participants is furnished at annexure-i. 1.2 shri m. sivasankar, chairman kseb...

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 3

2. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 22nd

MEETING OF SRPC .............................................. 4

3. REIMBURSEMENT OF SRPC EXPENDITURE....................................................................................... 4

4. NATIONAL POWER COMMITTEE (NPC)/IMPLEMENTATION OF ENQUIRY COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5

5. BRINGING THE DRAWAL OF POWER BY PUDUCHERRY FOR KARAIKAL REGION UNDER THE

REA OF SR ....................................................................................................................................... 18

6. HASSAN – MYSORE 400 KV D/C LINE UNDER SYSTEM STRENGTHENING SCHEME ....................... 18

7. NEW PROJECTS OF NTPC, NLC, NPCIL, JOINT VENTURE & UMPP .................................................. 20

8. OPENING OF LC DUE TO DELAYED UI CHARGES PAYMENT ........................................................... 35

9. IMPLEMENTATION OF RRF MECHANISM ....................................................................................... 36

10. IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT SCHEME (PETITION NO.

250/MP/2012) & GRID SECURITY EXPERT SYSTEM (GSES) (PETITION NO. 265/MP/2012) ........... 39

11. UNIFIED REAL TIME DYNAMIC STATE MEASURMENT (URTDSM) .................................................. 42

12. SYNCHRONISATION OF SR WITH NEW GRID / 765 kV RAICHUR-SHOLAPUR LINES ........................ 43

13. AUGMENTATION OF TALCHER- II TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ........................................................... 46

14. CONSTRAINTS IN TRANSMISSION SCHEMES FOR ISTS ................................................................... 49

15. TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS IN INTER-REGIONAL & INTRA-REGIONAL TRANSMISSION

SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................................................... 50

16. PROGRESS OF BUS/LINE REACTORS TO BE COMMISSIONED IN SR ............................................... 55

17. PROPOSALS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION IN S1 – S2 POWER CORRIDOR/ INTER-REGIONAL

CORRIDOR ...................................................................................................................................... 57

18. COAL STOCK POSITION IN THERMAL STATIONS OF SOUTHERN REGION ...................................... 59

19. ITEMS AGREED IN 36TH STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING & 16TH MEETING OF SR

CONSTITUENTS REGARDING LTA AND CONNECTIVITY APPLICATIONS .......................................... 63

20. IEGC RELATED ISSUES ..................................................................................................................... 63

21. REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE OF ULDC SCHEME.............................................................................. 70

22. AMC FOR SCADA ............................................................................................................................ 71

23. NON-PAYMENT OF TRANSFORMER CHARGES TO TNEB BY SOUTHERN REGION

CONSTITUENTS ............................................................................................................................... 73

24. PENDING ARREARS PAYMENT BETWEEN BENEFICIARY STATES IN SR ........................................... 75

25. OUTSTANDING DUES BETWEEN WR & SR ..................................................................................... 77

26. GRID OPERATION ........................................................................................................................... 78

Minutes of 23rd Meeting of SRPC held on 26th October 2013 Page 2

27. DEMAND VARIATION (Peak Vs Off-peak) ...................................................................................... 80

28. FREQUENCY OF OPERATION OF SOUTHERN GRID ......................................................................... 81

29. TRIPPING DETAILS .......................................................................................................................... 81

30. OPERATION OF TALCHER-KOLAR HVDC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IN GROUND RETURN MODE ... 83

31. PHYSICAL AND CYBER SECURITY/ CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN/ BLACK START PROCEDURES ...... 85

32. OVERLOADING OF ICTs AT THIRUNELVELI & MADURAI SUBSTATIONS DURING WIND

GENERATION SEASON .................................................................................................................... 86

33. DISBURSEMENT OF AVAILABLE PSDF ............................................................................................. 87

34. PROGRESS OF VARIOUS TRANSMISSION WORKS & GENERATING CAPACITY WORKS .................. 87

35. SINGLE PHASE AUTO RECLOSE SCHEME FOR LINE EMANATING FROM NUCLEAR STATIONS ....... 87

36. INSTALLATION OF OPGW ON LINES APPROVED IN THE 36TH STANDING COMMITTEE ................ 88

37. SHUT DOWN PLAN FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UNDER CONSTRUCTION .................................. 88

38. SHUTDOWN OF HVDC TALCHER-KOLAR LINK ................................................................................ 89

39. BALANCE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF RENOVATION OF SRPC OFFICE PREMISES ............................ 90

40. 132 kV KAKINADA – YANAM LINE .................................................................................................. 90

41. VARIABLE CHARGES OF RSTPS STAGE-III........................................................................................ 90

42. METHODOLOGY FOR ACCOUNTING INJECTION BY KUDANKULAM NPP ....................................... 91

43. METERING SCHEME AND ACCOUNTING METHODOLGY ............................................................... 91

44. HOLDING OF PROTECTION SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH ................... 91

45. ENERGY GENERATION DATA MANAGEMENT FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES .................. 92

46. COOPERATION DURING AP AGITATION & CYCLONE ..................................................................... 92

47. DATE & VENUE OF THE NEXT SRPC MEETING................................................................................ 92

48. VOTE OF THANKS ........................................................................................................................... 93


SOUTHERN REGIONAL POWER COMMITTEE

BANGALORE

MINUTES OF THE 23RD MEETING OF SOUTHERN REGIONAL POWER

COMMITTEE HELD AT KOCHI ON 26.10.2013

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The 23rd

Meeting of Southern Regional Power Committee was held at Kochi on

26th

October 2013. The list of participants is furnished at Annexure-I.

1.2 Shri M. Sivasankar, Chairman KSEB whole heartedly welcomed Chairperson, SRPC,

senior colleagues and all other dignitaries from power Utilities to Kerala. He

wished them a pleasant stay in Kerala and hoped that the proceedings of the

Meeting would be productive.

1.3 Shri Suresh Chanda, Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO welcomed all the

Members and other delegates to the 23rd

Meeting of SRPC. He added that it was

a pleasure to be in Kerala and he thanked Shri M. Sivasankar, Chairman, KSEB for

being a wonderful host.

1.4 Shri S.R.Bhat, Member Secretary I/c, SRPC welcomed Shri Suresh Chanda,

Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO, other Members & participants to the

Meeting. He placed on record the excellent leadership provided by Shri Heeralal

Samariya former Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO.

1.5 SRPC welcomed the following new Members to the forum:

Shri G. Kumar Naik, Managing Director, KPTCL

Shri S. Naveen Kumar Raju, Managing Director, PCKL

Shri Mohd. Anwaruddin, Director (Grid & Tr. Mgmt.), APTRANSCO

Shri S. Sumanth, Director (Trans.), KPTCL, Bangalore

Shri K.Vikraman Nair, Member (Tr. & SO), KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram

Shri S. Akshyakumar, Managing Director I/c, TANTRANSCO, Chennai

Shri M C S Reddy, Chief Operating Officer, UPCL, Bangalore

Shri Sanjeev Mehra, Managing Director, TPTCL, Noida

1.6 SRPC also placed on record the excellent services rendered by the following

outgoing Members:


Shri S. Selva Kumar, Managing Director, KPTCL

Shri K. N .Ramesh, Managing Director, PCKL

Shri P Sri Rama Rao, Director (GO), APTRANSCO, Hyderabad

Shri S. Pratap Kumar, Director (Trans.), KPTCL, Bangalore

Shri C. K. Dayapradeep, Member (Distr.), KSEB, Thiruvanathapuram

Shri V. G. Manoharan, Managing Director I/c, TANTRANSCO, Chennai

Shri V. Ravindran, Chief Operating Officer, UPCL, Bangalore

2. CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 22nd

MEETING OF SRPC

2.1 The Minutes of the 22nd

Meeting of the Southern Regional Power Committee held

at Bangalore on 18th

May 2013 had been circulated vide letter dated

18th

June 2013.

2.2 NPCIL vide letter dated 28th

June 2013 (Annexure-II) had furnished the following

Comments for incorporation in the Minutes:

1) Para-18.5.3 - addition of the following at the end

“NPCIL stated that implementation of 1x63 MVAR bus reactor at Guttur

had been suggested by CEA based on the detailed studies of SR Grid

way back in year 2006. The list of reactors comprised of 25 reactors

including one each at Kaiga & Guttur (63 MVAR). Thus implementation

of Guttur reactor was a priority item for voltage control".

2) Para 18.8 to be reworded as " CE (Tr.), NPCIL observed that the voltage

profile at Guttur/Kaiga should be monitored subsequent to

commissioning of Bus reactor at Guttur and then it could be taken up

with Standing Committee accordingly if need arises".

2.3 After deliberations, the Minutes of the 22nd

Meeting of the Southern Regional

Power Committee were confirmed with modification of Paras 18.5.3 & 18.8 as

suggested by NPCIL.

3. REIMBURSEMENT OF SRPC EXPENDITURE

3.1 Details of the net amount payable by each organization for the year 2013 -14,

after adjustment of the surplus/deficit for the previous period are furnished in

Annexure-III

3.2 Member Utilities were requested to arrange payment at an early date.


4. NATIONAL POWER COMMITTEE (NPC)/IMPLEMENTATION OF ENQUIRY

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 In the 22nd

Meeting of SRPC, it had been agreed that the concerns regarding

‘considered concurrence’ and other modalities would be taken up with NPC. The

Membership of PGCIL and NTPC to the NPC forum would also be recommended.

4.2 Accordingly, Chairperson SRPC vide letter dated 31st

May 2013 (Annexure-IV) had

taken up these issues with Chairperson, CEA.

4.3 The Second Meeting of NPC was conducted on 16th

July 2013 at CEA, New Delhi.

The Summary Record of Discussions of the Second NPC Meeting is enclosed as

Annexure-V. On the matter of ‘Methodology to bring agenda item in NPC by

RPCs – providing adequate time to RPCs’, the following had been decided:

Upon deliberations, it was decided that the agenda items from members

of RPCs for the NPC Meeting would be routed through their respective

Member Secretary after discussions at RPC level. It was also decided that

if some Members feel the necessity for discussing certain issues with their

constituents before giving their opinion thereon, they may seek the option

of getting it discussed at their respective RPC and revert back to NPC to

enable NPC take a final decision on the agenda item at its next Meeting.

4.4 Further, the following had been decided with regard to ‘Inclusion of NTPC & PGCIL

in the NPC Forum’:

Taking into consideration the opinion of the members, Chairperson, NPC &

CEA decided that the present arrangement of inviting CPSUs as special

invitees to NPC meetings, whenever considered necessary, would be

continued. However, he opined that NLDC could be included as a member

in NPC. He advised the RPCs to consult their constituents in the matter and

communicate their opinion at the next meeting.

4.5 The issues deliberated in the Second NPC Meeting were also discussed in the

Special Meeting of TCC held on 21st

August 2013. Chairperson, SRPC & CMD

APTRANSCO vide letter dated 22nd

August 2013 (Annexure-VI) addressed to the

SRPC Members had also brought to kind attention, the decisions taken in the

Second Meeting of National Power Committee. He had requested that necessary

action for compliance and implementation of the actions as finalized in the NPC

Meeting may please be arranged.


4.6 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had recommended for SRPC

consideration, inclusion of NLDC as well as CTU as Members to the NPC. It had

also been agreed that Agenda Items for the NPC Meetings, if any, would be

routed through Member Secretary, SRPC.

4.7 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that the Recommendation of

TCC could be agreed to.

4.8 The Committee approved the Recommendation of TCC in this regard. It was also

decided that Chairperson, SRPC would take up with Chairperson, CEA

recommending inclusion of NLDC and CTU to the NPC forum.

4.9 Implementation of measures to prevent Grid Disturbance

(A) Third party Protection Audit:

(a) In the Second Meeting of NPC, the following had been deliberated:

� CEA would be seeking supplementary information from the

States shortly on the DPRs submitted by them to bring some

uniformity therein.

� It had been agreed that the DPRs received from the States

would be treated as approved by their respective

managements.

� As per the consolidated DPR submitted to MoP funding from

PSDF had been proposed as 20% keeping in view the amount

parked in PSDF. This could vary depending upon the amount

approved by MoP/PSDF Management Committee. CERC

Regulations on PSDF were also in the process of review.

� It had been decided that the States would immediately take up

renovation and up gradation of protection system including

switchgears at their substations as mentioned in their

respective DPRs without waiting for the funds from the Centre.

As the funds become available from PSDF, the same would be

distributed to the States as per the guidelines /regulations in

force.

(b) In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 21st

August 2013, it had been

felt that the 20% funding proposed from the PSDF was inadequate.

States had also brought to attention the acute resource crunch being

faced by them. It was also stated that amounts required for

renovation and up gradation works had not been factored in the ARR

projections furnished to the respective SERCs. Utilities had therefore

requested that the 20% funding proposed be kindly reviewed by CEA


and the same be modified to 100% funding. This would ensure

completion of the scheme and also ensure grid security in the shortest

possible time.

(c) SRPC Secretariat & SRLDC had stated that renovation and up gradation

works were needed to be taken up immediately without linking the

same to any funding etc, since they were required functionally.

(d) TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 22nd

June 2013 (Annexure-VII) had

stated that necessary administrative approval for procurement and

other related activities could be obtained only upon a decision

towards funding assistance from PSDF. The matter was accordingly

brought to the kind attention of Member Secretary, NPC vide SRPC

letter dated 26th

June 2013. Chairperson, SRPC & CMD APTRANSCO

vide letter dated 23rd

August 2013 (Annexure-VIII) addressed to

Chairperson, CEA had informed that it had been felt that the 20%

funding proposed from PSDF was grossly inadequate in view of the

acute resource crunch being faced by the states. Hence, it had been

requested that 20% funding proposed, be reviewed by CEA and the

same modified to 100% funding as a special case.

(e) In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had recommended the

following:

� Utilities would carry out implementation of the

Recommendations relating to Third Party Protection Audit

as per prioritization in a phased manner. The Schedule of

activities would be furnished within one month and would

be discussed in the Protection Sub Committee Meeting.

� Issue regarding 100% funding though PSDF would be taken

up with MoP, Government of India.

� Utilities would commence works identified in the above

schedule without waiting for funding.

(f) Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO said that grid security was of

utmost importance. Hence, the best option would be to go ahead

with implementation of the scheme in a phased manner from own

funds. Concurrently, funding from PSDF could also be sought for the

works executed as well as for the balance works.

(g) MD, APGENCO pointed out that the DPR for each utility was around

`100 Crores or more while for the entire SR, it could be more than

`600 Crores. He therefore said that “in principle” agreement from


Govt. of India for funding was essential in view of the high level of

investments involved.

(h) Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO opined that even though the

investments were high, the works were needed to be carried out in

the interest of grid security. Linking commencement of works with

PSDF funding may be a risky decision. Hence, utilities could

commence works in critical areas in a phased manner based on the

resources available with them.

(i) Chairman, TANTRANSCO informed that TN had taken up with MoP

for release of PSDF funds for protection up-gradation by the utilities.

He pointed out that PSDF was governed by a set of Regulations and

was managed by CERC. He therefore suggested that Chairperson,

SRPC could take up with Secretary MoP and also with Chairperson,

CERC regarding funding from the PSDF. Issues such as fund

management, fund disbursement, retroactive financing etc were

also needed to be addressed. He expressed concern on the

unutilized amounts lying in the PSDF for a considerable period. He

also endorsed the views of Chairperson, SRPC that implementation

could commence in a phased manner from own funds of the

utilities. In the meanwhile, MoP could be urged for an early decision

regarding support from the PSDF.

(j) Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that

disbursement of funds from PSDF could be based on some formulae.

States should be given the liberty to utilize the funds not only for

protection related works but also for works related to modernization

etc. as per their priority.


(k) After deliberations, it was agreed that Chairperson, SRPC would

address a letter to Secretary (Power), MoP requesting support from

PSDF for protection up gradation works planned by the Utilities with

provision for retroactive funding. It was also felt that a mechanism

should be in place for disbursement based on the hierarchy of needs

and prioritization. Utilities would carry out implementation of

Recommendations relating to Third Party Protection Audit as per

prioritization in a phased manner. The Schedule of activities would

be furnished within one month and would be discussed in the

Meeting of Protection Sub Committee.

(B) Reactive Power Planning

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, it had been decided that all States

would carry out reactive power planning not only at transmission

level but also at distribution level and prepare schemes to maintain

voltage profile as per relevant Regulations/Standards. The schemes

would be forwarded by the States to the Power System Wing of CEA

under intimation to the NPC Secretariat at the earliest. Further,

execution of the approved schemes would be taken up by the States

without waiting for funds from PSDF.

� In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 21st

August 2013, the

Constituents had stated that they would rework the scheme

including distribution level and would apprise their management in

this regard. They had expressed that full funding be made through

the PSDF. SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat had stated that the scheme

should be taken up without linking it to any funding etc.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting,

Utilities had agreed to furnish the schemes relating to Reactive

Power Planning, including at distribution level within one month.

The time schedules for implementation would also be indicated.

Utilities had also requested for funding from PSDF.

� Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO said that utilities needed to

commence works which were critical from the technical point of

view. These too should be taken up without any linking to the aspect

of funding from PSDF.


� Director (Tr.), KPTCL stated that reactive compensation at

distribution level was also critical. He added that Karnataka had

carried out studies and identified locations for capacitors addition at

11 kV & 66 kV levels. In addition, reactor requirement at 400 kV level

had also been identified.

� MD, KPTCL endorsed the views of Chairperson, SRPC and said that

the work could be commenced by utilities from their own funds.

However, he added that track of the works being carried by the

utilities needed to be kept, which would be helpful in event of

retroactive funding.

� Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that based on system requirements,

capacitor addition were already being carried out by the utilities and

this was an ongoing process. Certain schemes like APFC were also

being financed through RAPRDP etc and hence he opined that this

need not be linked with funding from PSDF. Presently, funding from

PSDF could be limited to Protection Up gradation works. Utilities

could carry out reactive compensation works and the progress of

these schemes could be monitored in the technical meetings in

SRPC. All schemes could not be proposed for funding from PSDF,

since it would lead to lesser funding for Protection Up gradation.

� Chairperson, SRPC opined that part of PSDF funds could be tied with

identified schemes while other untied funds could be utilized by the

utility as per its requirement.

� After deliberations, it was agreed that Utilities would furnish the

schemes relating to Reactive Power Planning including at

distribution level within one month indicating also the time

schedules for implementation. Progress of these schemes would be

monitored in the SRPC forum. Request for funding through PSDF

could be sought at a later date.


(C) Ensuring proper functioning of UFRs and df/dt relays

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, it had been decided that all SLDCs

and RLDCs would upload the details of feeders to be tripped through

the UFRs and the expected load relief at different frequency levels in

their respective States/Regions on operations of UFRs. It had been

also decided that RPCs would send inspection report of healthiness

of UFR and df/dt regularly on a quarterly basis to the NPC

Secretariat.


August 2013, KSEB had

informed that the scheme had been extended to 11 kV feeders also.

TANTRANSCO had informed that additional UFRs were being

procured/shifted to implement the additional quantum of 400-550

MW relief under UFR.

� SRPC Secretariat had carried out UFR & df/dt relay inspection in a

few substations in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka & Kerala. Rectification

report for compliance had been furnished to the utilities.

� SRLDC had reported the matter regarding AUFR and df/dt protection

scheme performance as per clause 1.5 of IEGC, 2010. As per the

monitored values by SRLDC, the expected quantum in many critical

instances was far below the expected quantum. The AUFR and df/dt

protection scheme performance in the region needed improvement.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c informed that in the TCC Meeting the

following had been noted:

� Utilities had agreed to ensure desired relief through

identification of additional feeders and if required, feeders

would be added at lower voltage level (distribution level).

States would come up with an action plan in this regard.

� Detailed analysis would be carried out in the OCC

Meetings to identify areas requiring critical improvement.

� ED, SRLDC raising concern said that only about 40-50 % relief of the

desired relief was visible in the SCADA. During UFR operation, about

20 to 30% only of the desired relief was being realized. He informed

that detailed analysis was already being carried out. A Report was

being communicated to the states/SRPC secretariat once in every 10

days. He requested utilities to provide relays at lower voltage levels

also ensuring that the desired quantum of relief is thus achieved.


� After deliberations, it was agreed that detailed analysis would be

carried out in the OCC Meetings to identify critical improvement

areas. Utilities agreed to ensure desired relief through identification

of additional feeders. In case required, feeders would also be added

at lower voltage levels (distribution level). States after internal

analysis would come up with an action plan in this regard.

(D) Islanding schemes

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, CEA had requested all RPCs to submit

the details of progress of preparation/approval/execution of

islanding schemes to NPC Secretariat regularly on fortnightly basis.



noted that modified S1-S2 islanding scheme would be completed by

August 2013. Other islanding schemes would be completed by

October 2013. In the Protection Sub Committee Meeting held on

26th

September 2013, it had been noted that modified S1-S2

islanding scheme had been completed. TANTRANSCO had informed

that procurement of UF relays was in progress and the other

islanding schemes would be implemented by October 2013.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting the


� Modified S1-S2 islanding scheme had been implemented.

Balance works in respect of other identified islanding

schemes pertained to Tamil Nadu system alone.

� Other utilities had implemented their respective portion of

the islanding schemes.

� TANTRANSCO had informed that procurement of UFRs was

underway and implementation of the islanding schemes

would be completed by end November 2013.

� The Committee noted the above.


4.10 Reporting the Status of implementation of the recommendations of the

Enquiry Committee

� Status as on last day of the month to be forwarded by 3rd

day of the

following month, and that as on 15th

of the month to be forwarded by

17th

of the month. All the constituents had been requested to furnish

timely status updates on the status of implementation.



noted that APTRANSCO, KPTCL, KSEB & TANTRANSCO were furnishing

the status reports in time.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting it had

been noted that all the utilities were furnishing the data within the

prescribed time schedules. Similar cooperation in the future was kindly

sought.

4.11 Review of Zone -3 Philosophy

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, PGCIL had agreed to forward the

details of pending data to NPC Secretariat for onward transmission to

all the RPCs for further action.



noted that PGCIL had reviewed and implemented revised Zone-3

settings for inter-state lines, wherever required. MS I/c, SRPC had

informed that complete information had been communicated to

PGCIL.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c informed that in the TCC Meeting the following

had been noted:

� PGCIL had informed that they had analysed the Zone-3

settings on all India basis keeping in view settings being

adopted by different utilities, issues relating to different

manufacturers etc. They had certain observations with

regard to some of the settings adopted in SR.

� TCC had suggested that PGCIL may furnish these

observations to SRPC Secretariat for circulation. It was also

agreed that the issue would be deliberated in the

forthcoming Meeting of Protection Sub-Committee

scheduled to be held on 21st

November 2013.

� GM, PGCIL informed that they had collected Zone-3 settings adopted

by various utilities in respect of different lines. Certain discrepancies

were noted in this regard. He added that detailed deliberation in the


Protection Sub Committee on this matter was needed. In the

Protection Sub Committee Meeting, POWERGRID would put up

details of observed line wise deficiency for review.

� After deliberations, it was agreed that PGCIL would furnish the

observations to SRPC Secretariat for inclusion in the Agenda for the

forthcoming Protection Sub-Committee Meeting scheduled to be

held on 21st

November 2013.

4.12 Ring Fencing of Load Despatch Centers (LDCs)

4.12.1 In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 24th

June 2013, the following had been

noted:

� APTRANSCO had informed that interactions were underway and the

State Government had to take a view in this regard. Presently

separate SLDC accounting was being carried out.

� KPTCL had informed that the issues were under discussions at

Government level. Separate SLDC accounting was being carried out

in Karnataka also.

� KSEB had informed that the issue of asset transfer etc. was under

discussion. It could take around three months’ time for finalization

of this issue. Subsequently, the issue regarding Ring Fencing would

be taken up.

� TANTRANSCO had informed that separate ARR for SLDC had already

been put up to TNERC.

� Puducherry had informed that the Reform Steering Committee had

identified a Nodal Officer in January 13. The Report of the Nodal

Officer was awaited.

4.12.2 In the Second Meeting of NPC, it had been decided that inputs with regard to

status of implementation of Pradhan Committee Recommendations on Ring

fencing of SLDCs would be collected by RPCs from the States and forwarded to

NPC Secretariat every month.

4.12.3 In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 21st

August 2013, the following had been

noted:

� APTRANSCO had informed that SLDC accounts were different from

APTRANSCO accounts and separate Tariff had been issued by APERC.

State Government had to take any decision in this regard.


� KPTCL had informed that since last four years, SLDC accounts were

being maintained separately and paid by the DISCOMs. This was a

policy matter and decision to be taken by Government.

� Ring fencing had to be adopted in totality so as to achieve desired

autonomy.

4.12.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that the following had been noted in

the TCC meeting:

� Utilities had been requested to furnish monthly status reports to

SRPC Secretariat.

� Utilities had observed that Ring fencing was a Policy matter of the

Government.

� ED, SRLDC had expressed concern over the low number of

nominations by SLDCs to the System Operators Training Programme

in PSTI. He had requested for increased number of nominations to

such Programmes in order to increase the proficiency of System

Operators.

4.12.5 Chairperson, SRPC opined that SLDC could be ring fenced within the

TRANSCO itself. Mere creation of one more Government Company may

not achieve the desired objective of ‘Ring Fencing’. Fixing appropriate

responsibility on the existing company could be the right way forward.

4.12.6 Director (Tr.), KPTCL opined that necessity of one more company may not

be required, since it would entail avoidable additional corporate structure

etc.

4.12.7 ED, SRLDC suggested that in the existing company itself, the revenue

streams could be bifurcated. APTRANSCO & KPTCL informed that this

exercise had already been carried out by them.

4.12.8 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that CEA had already been requested to

consider 3 to 5 years’ time period for implementation, this being a major

regulatory issue. TN had also filed a separate petition before TNERC with

regard to ARR for SLDC. Ring fencing in the form of revenue stream, ARR

etc. could be carried out while in parallel Capacity building could also go

on. System Operator Certification could continue under the guidance of


POSOCO. However, some more time was required to make SLDC a

separate Company. CEA and the Government of India could be requested

in this regard.

4.12.9 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO said that as suggested, financial

independence within the present framework could be granted while later

a separate company could be contemplated. Capacity building exercise

could also go on.

4.12.10 After deliberations, it was decided that Chairperson SRPC would convey

the views of the forum to CEA/MoP.

4.13 Implementation of CEA Regulations

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, it had been decided that as a first step,

that all power utilities be sensitized on CEA Regulations through

workshops in Regional Fora. After completion of awareness phase, the

violations of CEA Regulations could be discussed and minuted in RPC

Meetings and persistent violations reported to Hon’ble CERC.



noted that the following Regulations are available on the CEA website:

� CEA (Safety requirements for construction, operation and

maintenance of electrical plants and electric lines)

Regulations 2011

� CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electricity Supply)

Regulations, 2010

� CEA (Grid Standards) Regulations 2010

� CEA (Technical Standards for Construction of Electrical

Plants and Electric Lines) Regulations 2010

� CEA (Installation and Operation of meters) Regulations

2006 and (Amendment) Regulations 2010

� Technical Standards for Connectivity to the Grid Furnishing

of Statistics, Returns and Information.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had suggested that

CEA be kindly requested to send its Officers to the RPC forum to help

improve awareness of the Regulations through Workshops, Seminars

etc.


� Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO opined that increased

awareness could be created in these Workshops, during which the

experts could go into issues threadbare.

4.14 Number of Stages for AUFLS

� In the Second Meeting, NPC had decided to implement AUFLS with

four stages of frequency viz. 49.2, 49.0, 48.8 & 48.6 Hz in all the

Regions. SRPC had been asked to follow the above four stages of

frequency since SR Grid was also going to be synchronized with NEW

Grid soon. Member Secretary, NPC vide letter dated 06th

August 2013

had stated that as per discussions in the second NPC Meeting, the first

two stages of AUFRs i.e. at 49.2 Hz and 49.0 Hz be implemented by

25th

August 2013 by utilizing the existing frequency relays. The other

two stages are to be implemented within three months, as agreed in

the NPC Meeting.


August 2013, all constituent

States had agreed to implement AUFLS with four stages of frequency

viz. 49.2, 49.0, 48.8 & 48.6 Hz. As a first step towards the same, setting

on feeders of current stage– I & II would be changed to 49.2 Hz and

49.0 Hz within two weeks. The other stages would also be

implemented after procurement of additional relays required, if any,

to adopt four stages of setting.

� In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting it had

been noted that all revised four stages of UFR in the Region had been

implemented. However, TANTRANSCO would implement some

balance quantum under fourth stage (48.6 Hz) by end November 2013.

� Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO enquired whether inspection

of relays was being carried out through third party audit. MS I/c, SRPC

informed that SRPC Secretariat was carrying out inspection of relays

installed at substations on a representative basis. Findings during the

inspection were being communicated to the utilities for needful.

4.15 Methodology for determination of quantum of load for AUFLS in different

Regions

� In the Second Meeting of NPC, it had been agreed that the quantum of

load shedding for NEW grid under AUFLS, as worked out in the agenda

was in order and the same could be communicated by NPC Secretariat

to all the RPCs for implementation. The same methodology could be


adopted to determine the quantum of load shedding at four stages of

frequency based on the power number for SR grid and communicated

to SRPC for implementation. It had also been agreed that the entire

AUFLS scheme be implemented in a maximum period of three months

by all RPCs.

� Based on the CEA letter dated 6th

August 2013, in the Special Meeting

of TCC held on 21st

August 2013, State-wise Break-up of the UFR

quantum to be provided at each stage had been presented.

5. BRINGING THE DRAWAL OF POWER BY PUDUCHERRY FOR KARAIKAL REGION

UNDER THE REA OF SR

5.1 Puducherry vide letter dated 01st

October 2013 (Annexure-IX) had proposed that

accounting of drawal of power for Karaikal Region be brought under Regional

Energy Accounting of SR.

5.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting, Puducherry had

been suggested to put up a detailed proposal in the ensuing meeting of

Commercial Sub-Committee. The outcome would then be placed in the ensuing

TCC/SRPC meetings.

5.3 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that Puducherry & Karaikal being enclave

territories in TN, the limited suggestion was that drawal of power by Puducherry

at Karaikal be under Regional Energy Accounting framework and within its

regional entitlement, provided TN transmission network permitted the same.

6. HASSAN – MYSORE 400 KV D/C LINE UNDER SYSTEM STRENGTHENING SCHEME

6.1 In the 22nd

SRPC Meeting, the following had been noted:

� KPTCL had informed that the Tripartite Agreement was ready and the

same would be furnished to Punjab & UPCL within a week’s time.

� APTRANSCO had observed that the issue regarding LTA quantum in

respect of Karnataka needed to be expedited, since it was long

pending.

� SRPC had approved the following course of action suggested by TCC in

this regard :

� MS I/c, SRPC may take up the issue with Punjab for revised

LTA quantum based on 10% capacity of UPCL plant. This

would relieve the IR corridor and have some relief on

transmission charges also.


� Regarding LTA quantum in respect of Karnataka, Member

(PS), CEA be requested to kindly convene a separate

Meeting with the constituents.

6.2 Subsequently, MS I/c, SRPC vide letter dated 20th

May 2013 (Annexure-X) had

taken up the issue with PSPCL. Further, as agreed in the 22nd

SRPC Meeting, SRPC

vide letter dated 20th

May 2013 had kindly requested CEA to convene a Meeting

to discuss and resolve the matter regarding LTOA quantum of Karnataka. Further,

Chairperson, SRPC & CMD APTRANSCO vide letter dated 10th

September 2013

(Annexure-XI) addressed to Chairperson, CEA had also requested that CEA may

convene a Meeting regarding LTA quantum in respect of UPCL plant.

6.3 KPTCL vide letter dated 7th

August 2013 had furnished the revised Tripartite

Transmission Agreement to PSPCL. PSPCL vide letter dated 16.09.2013 (Annexure-

XII) had intimated the receipt of the draft agreement. It was also stated that the

matter be finalized at the earliest so that further action for signing of the TSA

could be taken by PSPCL. UPCL vide letter dated 17th

August 2013 had stated that

the need for UPCL to become a party to the TSA did not arise.

6.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had suggested convening of a

Special Meeting to resolve the issues regarding scheduling of power to Punjab &

also with regard to finalization of the LTA quantum.

6.5 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO noted that this issue was a long pending

one and should be resolved without further delay. He suggested that a small

group of senior officials could sit together to analyze the issues in depth for

evolving an amicable solution.

6.6 Director (Tr.), KPTCL suggested that “one to one” Meeting could be held first and

then a Meeting with participation from all could be convened.

6.7 MS I/c, SRPC stated that scheduling of power from UPCL to Punjab needed to

commence. Scheduling of power to Punjab would help reduce the transmission

charges liability of other Constituents to some extent besides freeing the corridor

to the extent of 100 MW.


6.8 Senior Vice President, UPCL informed that there was no issue regarding

scheduling of power to Punjab. He suggested that the issue be deliberated in a

separate meeting with the concerned parties.

6.9 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that this issue had to be resolved at the earliest in

common interest. Scheduling of power to Punjab would also facilitate 100 MW

additional corridor to the SR constituents. He suggested SRPC Secretariat may

convene a Meeting at the earliest in this regard.

6.10 After deliberations, it was agreed to convene a Special Meeting to resolve the

issues regarding scheduling of power to Punjab besides finalization of the LTA

quantum.

7. NEW PROJECTS OF NTPC, NLC, NPCIL, JOINT VENTURE & UMPP

7.1 NTPC-Kayamkulam 1950 MW/1050 MW Plant

7.1.1 In the 22nd SRPC Meeting, the following had been noted:

� NTPC had intimated that the Draft PPA had been circulated to all the

States and concurrence/comments were awaited. Discussions with

M/s. GAIL were on regarding pipeline. However, before concluding

the agreement with M/s. GAIL, the PPA with the states needed to be

signed. Chairman, NTPC vide letter dated 10th

May 2013 had also

addressed a letter to the States in this regard. The indicative tariff

mentioned in the letter was around `9.12 per unit, if it was LNG.

However, in case domestic gas was available, the tariff would be

lower.

� KSEB had informed that they would like to avail 500 MW from the

project. The mode of transport of gas from Kochi to Kayamkulam

was to be finalized in consultation with GAIL & other agencies.

Though some discussions had taken place, there were no

conclusions.

� PGCIL had stated that the gestation period of gas plant was less than

24 months while transmission evacuation schemes especially in

Kerala would take much longer time. Hence, LTA quantum needed

to be communicated sufficiently in advance to finalize the

evacuation schemes to match the generation.


� APTRANSCO had stated that NTPC should envisage the project only if

they were sure of gas/RLNG supply in future. Against the anticipated

supply of 80 mmcmd from KGD-6, the supply was Nil. About

`30,000 Crores investment which had been made was not being

utilized. Though MoP had given the go ahead to the Developers, the

actual fuel supply was missing in this case. AP was losing about 70

MU/day of energy because of this shortage. Firming up of fuel

supply for 20-25 years and also the cost needed to be finalized and

confirmed by NTPC to avoid blockage of capacity as had already

occurred in AP. AP was not interested in availing power from this

plant.

� KSEB had informed that Petronet has set up a terminal at Kochi and

was having back to back arrangements for RLNG supply for 25 years.

Underground marine pipeline from Kochi to Kayamkulam (52 kms)

was being studied and could take another one and half years. With

landed fuel cost at around 16 dollars and 2 dollars cost estimated

towards pipeline, the tariff worked out to `9.16/unit. The gas supply

agreement as well as transport agreement were ready to be signed,

provided the PPAs were in place. KSEB was in touch with GAIL, NTPC

and Petronet. Stage-I of RGCCPP is meant only for Kerala while

Stage-II is being envisaged as a Regional Project.

� TNEB had informed that they had not taken any stand regarding

availing power from this project due to domestic gas aspects. Kochi-

Bangalore gas pipeline had not materialized due to RoW issues while

Kochi-Kayamkulam pipeline was still in the preliminary stages.

Severe RoW issues existed in Kerala and elsewhere. Long term price

fix on RLNG for 15-20 years needed to be worked out. Hedging may

need to be ensured for Forex variations. It was also not clear

whether ICB had been invited and on what basis 16 dollars price had

been discovered.

� KPTCL had stated that they were also yet to take a firm view on this

project.

7.1.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had noted the following:

� NTPC had stated that any further development could take place only

after signing of the PPAs. NTPC was also awaiting the response from

Tamil Nadu. It would be difficult to predict the future rates of gas in

the future as well as the likely exchange rate. Rate of `9.12 per unit

furnished in the earlier meeting was indicative only and prevalent at

that time.

� TN had stated that they would furnish their response shortly.


7.1.3 Director (Tr.), KPTCL informed that considering power availability in the state

during the next 5-10 years as well as the merit order, the management had

taken a decision that this costly power, as on date, was not required.

7.1.4 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that NTPC may try to bring

down the cost. However, he added that in perspective, any decision should

also be based considering whether ‘lack of power’ was costly or ‘costly’ power

was costly. It was well known that shortage of power had a cascading effect

on the economy.

7.2 NTPC- Kudgi TPS Stage-I (3x800 MW)

7.2.1 A coal based power plant of 2,400 MW installed capacity at Kudgi in Karnataka

is under construction by NTPC at an approved investment cost of about

`15,166 Crores.

7.2.2 In the 21st

/ 22nd

SRPC Meeting, the following had been noted:

� CEO, RECTPCL vide letter dated 24th

January 2013 had intimated that

the Empowered Committee had recommended to go ahead with the

competitive bidding process and RECTPCL had already initiated the

bidding process for selection of developer for the Kudgi ATS.

� PGCIL had said that with Kudgi-Narendra line in place, evacuation

from 1st

unit of Kudgi TPS would be ensured. The line from Kudgi –

Kudgi (PG) was extremely short (around 8 Kms) and should be

possible to be in place.

� SRLDC had stated that with Kudgi-Narendra line, effective

evacuation of Kudgi power may not be possible and hence the

Narendra-Kolhapur line should also be in place.

� NTPC had informed that the first unit was likely to be commissioned

with best efforts during June 2015 even though the commitment to

Government was March 2016 (CoD). The second unit was scheduled

after 6 months. Boiler for Unit-I had reached second tier, main PH

columns were under erection, chimney had reached zero meter and

other construction activities were progressing as per schedule.

� It was noted that three lines viz Kudgi-New Kudgi, New Kudgi-

Madhugiri, and Madhugiri-Bidadi were coming through the TBCB

route. Kudgi-New Kudgi line was likely to come up matching with

the commissioning of first unit. Narendra – Kolhapur and Narendra-

Kudgi lines were being executed by PGCIL and would come up by

commissioning of the first unit.


� KPTCL had informed that for the purpose of startup power to Kudgi,

LILO of 220 kV Basavana Bagewadi-Narendra line was being carried

out.

� PGCIL had also stated that full evacuation of the power with only the

limited lines available may not be ensured. It would be subject to

the margins available in the grid.

� SRLDC had reiterated that there could be evacuation problems for

800 MW with only these two lines in operation, in case margins were

not available.


� Unit-I synchronization would be during September 2015 and Unit-II

after 4 months i.e. January 2016.

� Supply of coal for the initial period had been tied up with Pakri

Barwadih Captive mines of NTPC. Recently, two more mines had

been allocated but it would take some time to develop the mines.

� Mode of coal transport could be entire Rail or Sea cum Rail.

� The progress of the project is at Annexure-XIII.

� PGCIL had stated that the commissioning schedule needed to be

noted since the lines through TBCB route had been given

compressed time schedules.

7.2.4 On a query by Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO about availability of

coal for this project, RED, NTPC informed that during the initial stages,

coal would be availed from Pakri Barwadih mines. It could take some

more time to develop two other allotted mines. He assured the

beneficiaries about the comfort level with regard to coal supply.

7.3 NLC-Neyveli TS-II Expansion (2x 250 MW)

7.3.1 In the 22nd

Meeting of SRPC, the following had been noted:

� NLC had earlier filed a petition in CERC (Petition No.15/MP/2013)

seeking Commission’s permission to maintain status-quo for

injection of infirm power and drawal of power for commissioning

activities under UI mechanism till declaration of COD or 31.08.2013

whichever is earlier.

� KSEB had stated that the commissioning of NLC-II Expansion project

cannot be delayed continuously as it would affect the beneficiaries.

It was also stated that the infirm energy shall be accounted only at

the actual variable cost of generation considering the following:


� Due to power shortage prevailing in the Southern grid, UI

rate is usually much higher than the variable cost of NLC

TPS-II Expansion project. Hence, allowing NLC to inject the

infirm energy at a rate much higher than variable cost may

act as deterrent for early commissioning of the project.

� Hon’ble CERC vide order on Petition No.250/MP/2012 had

ordered that UI is established strictly as a mechanism for

maintaining grid security.

� TANTRANSCO had stated that due to prolonged delay, SR grid is

being deprived of 500 MW. Hence, NLC may be insisted to

commission the units at the earliest at least before forthcoming

summer months. Further, NLC have filed a petition before Hon’ble

CERC anticipating further delay and seeking time extension upto

November 2013 for the purpose of injection of infirm power.

� NLC had intimated that the issue regarding early commissioning was

being followed up at the highest level with M/s. BHEL. This plant

had been included in the MoU parameters of M/s. BHEL. Refractory

dismantling works were currently under progress. The project was

already being reviewed by MoP, Ministry of Coal, Ministry of Heavy

Industries, CEA & Government of Tamil Nadu. CoD of Unit-I was

expected to be during September 2013 and Unit-II by December

2013.

7.3.2 Para 13 & 14 of Hon’ble CERC Order dated 04.09.2013 in respect of NLC TPS-II

Expn. is reproduced below for kind perusal:

“13. It is noticed that the Commission in its order dated 2.11.2012 had

allowed extension of time upto 15.2.2013 for injection of infirm

power from the project considering the special circumstances of the

case because of the new technology adopted by the petitioner. In the

instant case, the delay appears to be on account of re-designing of

coil support structures that had failed during load raising,

completion of design of the supporting structures inside FBHE and

manufacturing and erection of coils and support structures in

Fluidized Bed Heat Exchangers. We also notice that the petitioner

had faced similar problems in one of its generating station namely,

Barsingsar TPS (2x125 MW) which is based on CFBC technology

wherein the main plant package had been supplied by M/s BHEL.

Considering the factors in totality and due to unforeseen

circumstances, the petitioner is allowed to inject infirm power into

the grid for testing including full load testing till declaration of COD

or 30.11.2013, whichever is earlier. However, the extension of time

allowed for injection of infirm power into the grid shall not entitle


the petitioner for any increase in IDC and IEDC due to delay in

declaration of COD from the scheduled COD or any other

benefit/relaxation of availability or efficiency norms.

14. As the petitioner has submitted that the design change is required in

the supporting arrangement of FBHEs, the petitioner should also

consider recourse to action against the contractor as per agreement

for the delay, in accordance with the provisions, if any, of the

contract. This would also address the concern of the respondents by

way of reduction in the capital cost of the project.”

7.3.3 In its submission before Hon’ble CERC, NLC had stated that they were hopeful

of declaring COD by January 2014. However, some element of delay is

anticipated since the design was yet to be tested. NLC had also sought

maintaining status quo in the injection of infirm power under UI mechanism

till 31st

March 2014 or declaration of COD, whichever is earlier.

7.3.4 TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 25th

September 2013 (Annexure-XIV) had

stated that NLC should be advised to commission the units at the earliest, at

least before forthcoming summer months.


� Modified Coils had reached site and erection works were in full

swing. M/s BHEL was planning to achieve full load by January 2014.

BHEL & NLC had jointly formed different teams for supply & erection

and each activity had been planned meticulously.

� CoD of Unit 1 was expected during January 2014 and Unit 2 by

March 2014.

� Progress status had been reviewed recently in the Review Meeting

with participation of higher management of M/s BHEL.

� KPTCL had expressed serious concern over the delay in

commissioning of the units which was seriously affecting the power

procurement plan of the states.

� TANTRANSCO had pointed out that the transmission charges for the

ATS were being borne by the Constituents.

� SRLDC had noted that the generation from the unit would be helpful

during the proposed shutdown of Talcher-Kolar HVDC link and had

requested NLC to expedite the unit commissioning.


7.3.6 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO requested NLC to expedite and

commission the units at the earliest.

7.4 NLC - New Thermal Power Project (2x 500 MW) at Neyveli

7.4.1 NLC had proposed to construct a new lignite based Thermal Power Project of

2x500 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. The project was likely to take 40 months after PIB approval and was

targeted to be commissioned in 2014. The beneficiaries of Southern Region

had signed the PPA. The sanction of Government of India for the project had

been received vide letter dated 9th

June 2011.

7.4.2 The following had been noted till 22nd

meeting of SRPC:

� TN had stated that the entire power from this project should be

allocated to TN as in the case of Simhadri-I which had been allocated

to AP.

� Puducherry had informed that Hon’ble Chief Minister had written to

MoP seeking more allocation and the same was under the

consideration of CEA.

� A Meeting had been held on 11th

January 2012 at New Delhi

regarding allocation of additional power to Puducherry from Neyveli

New Thermal Power Project (NNTPP). TANGEDCO was requested to

confirm their view point on permanently allocating about 53 MW

from its share of NNTPP. However, the exact quantum of power

could be mutually decided by Government of Tamil Nadu & UT of

Puducherry. The allocation of share to other States would remain

unchanged. TANGEDCO had informed that they would furnish their

comments after consultation with the management.

� NLC had informed that refloating of tenders was carried out on 25th

September 2012.

� Tamil Nadu had informed that the additional power sought by

Puducherry could be made available from the unallocated power of

the Station.

� NLC had intimated that bid evaluation was under process. Unit-I was

scheduled to be commissioned by March 2017 and Unit-II by

September 2017.



� Tendering activities had been completed and Order would be placed

by 1st

week of November 2013. Due to litigation issues with earlier

bidder, tendering activities had got delayed. CoD of Unit-I & Unit –II

was expected by October 2017 & April 2018 respectively.

� PGCIL had stated that firm commissioning schedules were required

to be communicated to Empowered Committee since ATS was to

come through the TBCB route. LTA had already been granted to NLC

New Thermal Power project.

� TANTRANSCO & NLC would mutually resolve issues relating to land

for the proposed 230 kV substation at Neyveli.

7.4.4 SRPC noted the above.

7.5 NPCIL-Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) Stage-I (2x1000 MW)

7.5.1 In the 20th

Meeting of TCC held on 1st

February 2013, NPCIL had informed that

fuel loading had been completed. Clearance from Regulators was to be

obtained at various stages. Unit-I was expected to be synchronized by 2nd

/3rd

week of March 2013 with initial generation of 200 MW which would go upto

1000 MW in one month time. CoD of Unit-II would be after 6-8 months from

the CoD of first unit.

7.5.2 In the 21st

Meeting of SRPC held on 2nd

February 2013, KKNPP had informed

that nuclear fuel loading had been completed on 1st

October 2012. Hydro test

was going on. Clearance for criticality was expected by end of February 2013.

Stage-wise clearance was to be obtained from the Regulator subsequently.

7.5.3 In the 22nd

Meeting of SRPC held on 18th

May 2013 the following had been

noted:

� KSEB had stated that delay in commissioning of KKNPP, brings in

serious embarrassment in development in Kerala’s power sector.

Early commissioning and achieving full load as early as possible was

required in view of S1-S2 congestion.

� NPCIL had informed that the station was poised for injecting power

from June 2013. However, as per the recent directives of Hon’ble

Supreme Court, safety measures of the plant were to be reassessed

by AERB and other regulatory agencies. There could be slippage of

about one month in commencement of generation. As per the


present position, the reassessment of the safety measures

especially by AERB was likely to be completed by mid-June 2013

after which, the reactor would go critical. The comments on Draft

PPA had been received only from Karnataka & Puducherry. It had

been requested other beneficiaries also to expedite their

comments, so that the PPA could be signed.

7.5.4 A Meeting had been held at Kudankulam on 22nd

July 2013 with participation

of officers from NPCIL, TANTRANSCO, PGCIL, POSOCO, KSEB and SRPC

Secretariat to review the preparedness for synchronizing Unit 1 which had

attained criticality. A number of Measures were identified in that Meeting.

7.5.5 TSS, KKNPP vide letter dated 19th

August 2013 had informed that KKNPP Unit-I

would be ready for synchronization by end August 2013.


� Unit-I had been test synchronized on 22nd October 2013 with about

160 MW generation and was subsequently taken out from the grid

for statutory checks. Unit-I was likely to be resynchronized by

26th

October 2013.

� Generation level would be increased to 400 MW and subsequently

to 500 MW which was presently the approved quantum of AERB.

� Power level would subsequently be increased to 1,000 MW within

one month after obtaining AERB approval.

� Unit-II would be synchronized after about 6 to 8 months.

� ED, SRLDC had stated that GT Tap position should be changed to 400

kV before resynchronization of the Unit. This was in accordance with

the deliberations in the Meeting held at Kudankulam on 22nd

July

2013. In case the tap position is not changed, three lines (out of four)

may be required to be kept open to contain over voltage. Evacuation

of power if carried out through a single line would only lead to

considerable reduced reliability.

� NPCIL had informed that AVR settings were to be tuned and tap

could be changed subsequently. NPCIL would study this matter

further and come out with the course of action. It had again

requested that the unit be allowed to resynchronize with the existing

tap position.

� TCC had placed on record the appreciation of NPCIL in

commissioning of the KKNPP unit despite various challenges faced

during the course. It had also suggested that issues relating to GT


tap position needed to be addressed by NPCIL in the interest of

system security.

MS I/c also informed that Unit-I had been resynchronized at 21.43 Hrs on

25.10.2013.

7.5.7 Chairperson SRPC suggested that the technical issues such as tap position etc

be resolved at the earliest.


7.6 BHAVINI- Kalpakkam PFBR (500 MW)

7.6.1 Till 22nd

Meeting of SRPC, it had been noted that:

� BHAVINI had informed that the systems in the plant were getting

commissioned. Fuel loading was expected by end 2013 and

generation expected by September 2014 after completion of various

tests.

7.6.2 In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 21.08.2013, the issue regarding

commissioning of 230 KV Kalpakkam-Kancheepuram D/C line under Kalpakkam

PFBR Scheme raised by BHAVINI vide letter dated 12th

July 2013 was

considered. The following had been noted in this regard:

� The target dates of commissioning of Kudankulam units as well as

the BHAVINI unit have been delayed on number of occasions.

Projects were behind original schedules envisaged and this was

adversely affecting the planning process of the SR constituents.

There was also a 230 kV cable (not for evacuation) interconnecting

MAPS and BHAVINI S/S apart from four 230 kV lines.

� TCC had opined that firm commitment from BHAVINI was required

to assess the load generation balance accurately. Further the asset

i.e. Kancheepuram S/S should be put in use at the earliest. It was

also noted that four 230 kV lines were already in place to evacuate

BHAVINI generation and Kancheepuram S/S was being followed up

by TANTRANSCO on priority basis. With the commissioning of

Kancheepuram S/S, full evacuation system for PFBR would be in

place.

� ED (Operation), BHAVINI had informed that the target date for

commissioning of the unit was March 2014.

7.6.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had noted that the target date

of commissioning of the unit was March 2014. TANTRANSCO had informed


that tender in respect of Kancheepuram S/S had been finalized and the

substation was expected to be ready by September 2014.


7.7 NTECL - NTPC & TNEB Joint Venture - Vallur STPS (3x 500 MW)


Meeting of SRPC:

� Unit-1 (500MW) was declared under commercial operation with

effect from 00:00 Hrs of 29th

November 2012.

� In the OCC Meetings, SRLDC has brought to attention about the non-

performance of RGMO by NTECL Vallur Unit-I. NTECL Vallur had

earlier confirmed the RGMO implementation in the 81st

OCC

Meeting.

� NTPC had informed that Unit-II had reached full load and CoD would

be during June 2013 while CoD of Unit-III was expected during

February 2014.

� SRLDC had stated that RGMO should be in place before CoD

declaration for Units II & III. Unit-I was showing RGMO response in

certain instances. The graph furnished in last OCC meeting was for

output with respect to speed which needed to be furnished for

frequency with respect to output. It was also pointed out that the

period of 6 months allowed from commissioning to CoD was

basically for testing of various loops etc. Only after that, the CoD

should be declared.

� NTPC had observed that the auto loops get tuned over a period of

time. Putting in CMC mode was possible after operation in different

conditions. Any unit needed to run for at least one or two months

before putting the loops in auto mode. As per CERC norms, they had

time upto August 2013 to declare the CoD. However, all efforts

would be made to enable the RGMO features before CoD.

� SRLDC had pointed out that there was inadequate coal even for Unit-

I. Unit-I was thus being run at full load only during the peak hours.

� NTPC had informed that the MoU for Unit-II was to be signed with

MCL. A visit by MCL to inspect the readiness of Unit-II was also due.

MoU quantity was only for about 50% of the required quantity.

Blending with imported coal would be carried out, however there

would still be a shortfall. He added that blending upto 30% could be

carried out.

7.7.2 Subsequently, Unit-II (500MW) was declared under commercial operation with

effect from 00:00 Hrs of 25th

August 2013. In the 87th

OCC meeting held on


11th

September 2013, SRLDC had expressed concern over the commissioning

of NTECL unit without fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the Operating

Procedure. The 72 hours Full Load Test had not been carried out, also copy of

PPA as stipulated in IEGC was not made available. It was also noted that Unit

II had faced a number of forced outages after declaration of the COD.

7.7.3 NTECL had informed that FSA for Phase I (2x500 MW) had been signed with

MCL on 24th

July 2013. FSA for Phase 2 (1x500 MW) of NTECL had also been

signed on 30th

August 2013.

7.7.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting NTPC had

informed that Unit-II had been put under RGMO. Boiler light up of Unit-III had

been completed and steam blowing was scheduled during November 2013.

Synchronization of the unit was expected during February 2014.TCC had

suggested that the detailed programme/activities of commissioning of Unit-III

be furnished by NTECL.

7.7.5 Regional ED, NTPC assured that any mandatory compliance would be ensured.

7.8 NLC & TNEB Joint Venture at Tuticorin (2x 500 MW)


Meeting of SRPC:

� NLC had informed that orders had been placed on M/s. BHEL and it

was a coal based project and was a new area for them. Considering

the schedule of 40 months & 45 months from LOA signing i.e.

28.01.2009 units I & II were scheduled to be commissioned during

August 2012 & October 2012 respectively.

� 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.

� NLC had informed that the likely CoD of the first unit would be in

December 2013 and another unit in March 2014. There was about

15 months delay in the project. M/s. BHEL had committed to

maintain the commissioning schedule of December 2013 & March

2014 for Unit I & Unit II respectively.


� PGCIL & SRLDC had stated that the firm schedules of power injection

should be furnished by NLC as it would impact the TTC/ATC

computations.

7.8.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting , NLC had

informed that progress of this project had also been reviewed in the recent

Meeting chaired by Secretary (Coal) with participation of higher management

of M/s BHEL. CoD of Unit-I was expected by February 2014 and Unit-II by May

2014.


7.9 Krishnapattanam UMPP (6x660 MW)


Meeting of SRPC:

� The project had been awarded to Reliance in the year 2007. The

initial configuration of 5x800 MW was subsequently revised to 6x660

MW with CERC approval. LOI had been placed with M/s. Shanghai

Electric Corporation.

� Maharashtra was yet to enter into PPA with CAPL while the other

beneficiaries had signed the PPA.

� The generation developer had stopped the works at site and the

project may get delayed.

� In the 19th

SRPC Meeting, APTRANSCO had informed that APSPDCL

the lead procurer had tried to encash the bank guarantee. However,

Reliance had approached Hon’ble Delhi High Court and obtained

stay. Hearing on the petition was again held on 31st

May 2012. The

Hon’ble Court had reserved the judgment on the matter. The

present developer could be recommended for cancellation. SRPC

may have to approach MoP for entrusting this project to some other

developer.

� PCKL had informed that under the leadership of AP all the procurers

had adopted a tough stand. Concerted action had been taken and

once the stay was vacated the bank guarantee could be encashed.

They were also ready with the Caveat in this regard. After encashing

the BG, future course of action could be decided as per the terms of

PPA. Since bidding route was adopted, there was no scope for

revision of the prices and Reliance should have had proper back to

back arrangement for coal supply.


� KPTCL had opined that the matter regarding cancellation could be

taken up with MoP so that the associated legal issues could also be

examined by them.

� APTRANSCO had informed that the issue regarding encashment of

bank guarantee was before the Division Bench.

� In the 21st

SRPC Meeting APTRANSCO had informed that they had

conducted a meeting with the procurers. The consensus was to go

ahead as per PPA. However, it was also learnt that the developer

had approached CERC.

� KPTCL had stated that there were certain observations on admission

and that developer had to come back in this regard. The case was

still going on in Delhi High Court.

� In the 22nd

Meeting, APTRANSCO had stated that matter was still

pending before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court regarding

termination of the contract. CAPL petition regarding revision of

tariff was also pending before Hon’ble CERC.

7.9.2 In the Meeting, Chairman, TANTRANSCO enquired about the status of case in

Delhi High Court and CERC. He added that this project should not be allowed

to lapse. He therefore suggested that being the lead procurer, AP may kindly

take up the issue appropriately.

7.9.3 Director (Tr.), KPTCL informed that it was learnt that though the stay has been

vacated, Reliance had approached the Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. He

noted that in earlier Meetings, the other states had authorized AP to proceed

on this matter.

7.9.4 APPCC informed that hearings were still going on in Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

7.9.5 It was agreed that AP on behalf of other beneficiary states would take up the

matter regarding early disposal of the petitions.

7.10 The scheduled dates of synchronizing/commissioning of the new projects of

NTPC, NLC, NPCIL, BHAVINI, Joint Venture & UMPP as noted in the 23rd

Meeting

of SRPC are furnished below:


Station Unit

Installed

Capacity

MW

Scheduled date of

synchronizing /

commissioning

Remarks

NTPC

Kayamkulam I, II, III 1050/

1950

12th

Plan Gas supply by 2014. Kerala

requested for 500 MW each. TN &

Puducherry would consider after

knowing the tentative tariff. AP &

KAR DISCOMs were not willing to

procure the power.

Kudgi TPS Stage-I I,II, III 3x800=

2400

Unit-I :

synchronization by

September 2015

Unit-II:

By January 2016

Construction activities in progress.

Evacuation issues needed to be

addressed.

Vallur STPS JV with

TNEB (NTECL)

I 500 Original schedule:

February 2011

CoD on 29.11.2012

II 500 Original schedule:

August 2011

CoD on 25.08.2013

III 500 Synchronisation by

February 2014

Work in progress

NLC

Neyveli-II Expn. I 250 CoD January 2014 Achieved full load. Technical issues

being attended by M/s. BHEL.

II 250 CoD March 2014 Work in progress

New Thermal Power

Project

I 500 October 2017 Tendering activities completed.

Order by 1st

week of November

2013.

II 500 April 2018

Tuticorin JV with

TNEB (NTPL)

I 500 Original schedule:

40 months after

LOA (signed on

28.01.2009)

Anticipated

schedule:

February 2014

Work in progress

II 500 Original schedule:

45 months after

LOA (signed on

28.01.2009)

Anticipated

schedule:

May 2014

Work in progress

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. Approval of

Feasibility Report was awaited from

NLC Board.

NPCIL

Kudankulam Stage-I I 1000 CoD:

November 2013

Synchronised on 22nd

October 2013

II 1000 6-8 months after

unit-I

Work in progress


BHAVINI

Kalpakkam (PFBR) I 500 Target date:

March 2014

Work in progress.

UMPP

Krishnapattanam 3960

(6x660)

Units configured as 6x660 MW.

Amended PPA for 6x660 MW had

been executed with the procurers.

The developer had stopped the

works at site and the project may

get delayed.

Cheyyur 4000 Site finalized during meeting of CMs

held on 04.08.08. Consultants

appointed by SPV of PFC. Draft of

rapid EIA report completed.

7.11 A Statement showing details of MoP allocation/power requirements indicated by

various constituents of SR from the New Projects is furnished at Annexure-XV.

7.12 MS I/c , SRPC informed that in TCC meeting APPCC had raised concern on the

burden of sharing of transmission charges of ATS in event of delay of

commissioning of the project by the Generator.

8. OPENING OF LC DUE TO DELAYED UI CHARGES PAYMENT

8.1 SRLDC had informed in the Commercial Sub-Committee & OCC Meetings that

APTRANSCO, TANGEDCO, LKPL and SEL had to open / enhance LC for delayed

payment of UI charges. The details are as furnished below:

APTRANSCO `247.50 Lakhs

TANGEDCO `2635.00 Lakhs

LKPL `2.44 Lakhs

SEL `17.10 Lakhs

8.2 SRPC Secretariat vide letter dated 24th

September 2013 had requested the

concerned utilities that opening / enhancement of the LC may be expedited.

8.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that the following had been noted in the

TCC Meeting:

� APTRANSCO had informed that they had already opened LC for

`2.475 Crores.


� TANTRANSCO had stated that they had taken up this matter with

Hon’ble CERC and were awaiting orders. Enhancement of LC amount

as computed by SRLDC may not be required. It was pointed out that

since the overdrawal by TN had considerably reduced, the need to

open LC for the huge amount did not arise. TN would comply with any

directions from Hon’ble CERC in this matter.

� SRLDC had informed that defaulting constituents were being followed

up on the matter of opening / enhancement of LC. Status, in this

regard was also being reported to Hon’ble CERC. The proper recourse

would be to approach Hon’ble CERC through a petition for any

redressal. However, in the meanwhile the LCs for the above amounts

had to be opened, since LC amounts had been worked out only as per

the Regulations. Failure to open the LC would amount to

noncompliance of the provisions of UI Regulations.

� Concerned utilities had been requested to kindly expedite

opening/enhancement of LC for delayed payment of UI charges.

8.4 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that there may be no point in opening of LC with

enhanced limits, in the present restricted band of operation. The frequency band

had also been narrowed and quantum of over drawals had also come down.

Hence, insisting on opening of LC with enhanced limits, based on past historical

data may not be correct.

8.5 Chairperson, SRPC opined that LC requirement may need to be reviewed based on

the prevailing conditions.

8.6 ED, SRLDC stated that LC requirement was in line with CERC Regulations. He said

that Hon’ble CERC would need to be approached through a Petition for any

amendment in the Regulations.

8.7 After deliberations, Chairman TANTRANSCO stated that they would approach

Hon’ble CERC in this regard.

9. IMPLEMENTATION OF RRF MECHANISM

9.1 A Meeting was conducted on 25th

September 2013 in SRLDC/SRPC, Bangalore to

discuss various issues relating to RRF Mechanism. NLDC, New Delhi had

participated in the Meeting through VC. Following issues had been discussed in

the Meeting:


� SRPC had brought to attention that data in respect of only one pooling

station in Karnataka had been received for the RRF Account issued on

24th

September 2013. AP had not furnished the data so far. AP

informed that the Solar and Wind Generators in AP had not fixed the

Coordinating Agency.

� NLDC had stated that SLDCs should coordinate with the Coordinating

Agency so that the schedule and actual data are made available within

the time frame stipulated in the Regulations.

� NLDC had also expressed deep concern that the list of Coordinating

Agency and other details had not been made available to SRLDC.

SLDCs expressed that the Wind Generators in certain cases were not

in a position to come to a consensus regarding fixing of Coordinating

Agency for the purpose of scheduling, metering and energy

accounting etc.

� NLDC and SRPC had stated that SLDCs should initiate urgent action in

this regard. SLDCs should come out with a white paper within a

period of 7 days. This white paper should contain all details regarding

number of pooling stations, Coordinating Agency etc. and also the

status of RRF implementation in the State. Further, SLDCs should take

up the matter with SERC/CERC in case the Wind Generators are

unable to come to a consensus. It was noted with concern that

though the RRF mechanism had come into effect from 15th

July 2013

the Generators had been unable to come to a consensus regarding

Coordinating Agency.

� Wind Generators had informed that in certain cases it had been

observed that there is mismatch between schedule data furnished to

SLDC and the schedule data considered in the RRF account issued by

SRPC Secretariat. SRPC clarified that the RRF account was prepared

based on the schedule and actual data received from SRLDC. SRLDC

informed that they had processed the data given by SLDCs and

forwarded the data to SRPC. SLDCs were requested to look into the

issue. TANTRANSCO informed that there were certain issues due to

wind backing down conditions during high frequency.

� It was noted that in certain blocks though the actual injection was

furnished there were no corresponding schedule data. It was decided

that the accounting will be carried out only if both the schedule and

actual injection data are furnished. No assumptions in this regard will

be made by SRPC Secretariat. SLDCs were requested to ensure that

the data submitted by them to RLDCs was complete in all respects.

� NLDC had stated that disbursement through RRF mechanism had

presently been stayed by Hon’ble Court. However, all the concerned

utilities were requested to furnish concerned details such as bank


account details etc. to SRLDC at an early date. SRLDC in turn would

furnish the same to NLDC.

� SLDCs were requested to carry out data validation checks to ensure

that the actual injection data furnished by them to SRLDC is accurate.

9.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that the issue had been deliberated in the

TCC Meeting and the following had been noted:

� States had been requested to submit the “White Paper” containing

information relating to Pooling Stations, Coordinating Agency etc. as

agreed in the Meeting held on 25th

September 2013.

� It had also been suggested to the States to jointly identify common

issues such as those relating to treatment of schedule during backing

down and appropriately take up the same with Implementing

Agency/SERC/CERC.

� Need for timely submission of the data for preparation of the RRF

accounts had also been emphasized.

9.3 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO enquired whether the issue was related

to comprehension of the Regulations or to the availability of data.

9.4 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that it appeared that the mechanism had been

wrongly designed and was against promotion of renewable energy. TN had about

7,000 MW of wind energy of seasonal nature, the generation being maximum

during May to September. There were huge intraday variations between 100-

3000 MW. While +/- 30% variations for wind were being allowed, with respect to

TN drawal only 100 MW band was being allowed. Fundamental flaw in this regard

had also been informed to Ministry of Power. Proposed tightening of the

Frequency Band between 49.95-50.05 Hz, with 7,000 MW wind generation may

not be very viable. In Tamil Nadu, about 250 MW only of WF were covered under

the new Regulations. There were also issues related to Temporary/Permanent

Connectivity. The RRF mechanism had also imposed huge commercial burdens on

the Discom, since payments were to be made w.r.t. Reference Rate of `5. There

were issues relating to transmission also, since the wind mills were of locational

nature. He stated that they would approach Hon’ble CERC in this regard.


9.5 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that TN may kindly take the

lead in this regard. Chairman, TANTRANSCO agreed to file a petition before

Hon’ble CERC.

10. IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTOMATIC DEMAND MANAGEMENT SCHEME (PETITION

NO. 250/MP/2012) & GRID SECURITY EXPERT SYSTEM (GSES) (PETITION NO.

265/MP/2012)

10.1 Automatic Demand Management Scheme in line with clause 5.4.2 (d) of the IEGC

was to be provided by all the constituents by 01.01.2011.

10.2 With respect to Petition (No. 250/MP/2012) Hon'ble CERC had issued an order

dated 14.01.2013 & RoP dated 07.03.2013. Para 4 of the RoP is reproduced

below:

“In response to Commission`s query whether both Grid Security Expert

System (GSES) and Automatic Demand Management scheme are

required or it may be duplication of facilities, the representative of the

NRLDC submitted that both the schemes are separate and need to be

implemented with the GSES would be operated from SLDC and RLDC

level and would be at higher voltage level, Automatic Demand

Management Scheme (ADMS) will be at 11 kV, 33 kV feeder level. The

objective of ADMS is to control the demand as per availability and at

the same time objective of GSES is for action when action by ADMS is

not sufficient.”

10.3 With respect to Petition (No. 265/MP/2012) Hon'ble CERC had issued RoP on 10th

January 2013. Subsequently a Special TCC Meeting was held on 11th

and 12th

February 2013 and the views were communicated to Hon’ble CERC. Hon’ble CERC

had passed an Order dated 5th

March 2013 in this regard. Para 8 (a) & (b) are

reproduced below.

“8. The Commission directed to CTU to submit the following on affidavit by

16.4.2013:

(a) Clear demarcation between Automatic Demand Management

Scheme and GSES, indicating voltage level at which both the schemes

will operate; and

(b) Duplicity, if any, between the two schemes, in general and

particularly with reference to optic fibre network proposed in Unified

Load Despatch and Communication scheme.”


10.4 In the 22nd


� Detailed engineering in respect of GSES needed to be carried out in

consultation with the states for finalization of BoQ. Attention that

Para 6 of RoP dated 05.03.2013 in respect of Petition

No.265/MP/2012 states “The Commission observed that all the

technical issues should have been discussed and sorted at RPC

level……….”

� With respect to Petition (No. 265/MP/2012) Hon'ble CERC had passed

order dated 5th

March 2013. Para 8(a) & (b) of the Order were also

noted.

� PGCIL would have one to one interactions (including ISGS) for detailed

engineering to finalize the scheme during the first week of June 2013.

A common meeting would subsequently be convened to finalize the

overall scheme for SR.

� PGCIL would furnish the formats in which the information is to be

furnished by the constituents within one week.

10.5 In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 24th

June 2013, the following had been

agreed:

� All States would furnish the data to PGCIL (LD&C, Gurgaon) within one

week time.

� Issues like grouping, differentiation in ADMS and GSES could also be

raised for seeking clarity.

� One to one meeting to be carried out by PGCIL at the State Head

Quarters at an early date.

� Subsequently a common meeting could be held at SRPC Bangalore for

finalization of the scheme.

� SRPC would address a communication to Secretary, CERC expressing

that the scheme was under preliminary discussion stage.

� Detailed Engineering could thus only be carried out after thorough

deliberations with State Utilities. Subsequently only the scheme could

be implemented.

� The concern about the State Utilities would also be put up to NPC.

10.6 PGCIL vide letter dated 27th

May 2013 addressed to the utilities had stated that

the GSES scheme had been proposed based on the feeders identified in the

document forwarded by NLDC. The feeders indicated had been identified by

SRLDC. In case of any observations on these feeders, the same could be discussed


with SRLDC. PGCIL had also sought the information on priority. In the Special TCC

Meeting held on 24th

June 2013, it had been agreed that the status be brought to

the kind attention of Hon’ble CERC. As agreed, the matter had been appraised to

Hon’ble CERC vide SRPC letter dated 26th

June 2013.

10.7 It was understood that Meetings with APTRANSCO & TN in this regard had already

taken place. PGCIL and the constituents were requested to appraise the status in

this regard.

10.8 Relevant Para contained in Order dated 6th September 2013 of Hon’ble CERC in

respect of Petition No.129/MP/2012 & IA 18/2012 is reproduced below for kind

perusal:

“24. Accordingly we grant in-principle approval for Phase-I of the scheme.

As proposed and agreed in CEA meeting dated 05.03.2012, PMUs will

be placed at those locations where fibre optic communication link is

either available or would be made available under microwave

frequency vacating programme and regional strengthening

programme by 2014-15 along with installation of PDCs at all SLDCs,

RLDCs, NLDC, NTAMC, strategic locations in State, remote consoles at

RPCs, CEA, CTU and other locations as proposed.

25. Phase-II of the scheme mainly involves laying down of Optic Fibre

Cables. Communication being back bone of power system operation,

the petitioner is granted liberty to file a composite scheme for laying

of OPGW required for execution of URTDSM and Grid Security Expert

System (GSES) as proposed by the petitioner in Petition

No.265/MP/2012 as well as other communication requirements. The

petitioner shall provide full details in respect of OPGW of

aforementioned schemes to enable due priority to the

communication system for power system operation. CEA may also be

consulted before submitting the scheme to the Commission. The

Commission also accords in-principle approval for providing PMU for

Phase-II commensurate with the approval of OPGW for the said

phase. The petitioner is directed to apprise the Commission the

progress and benefit of Phase-I along with the updated cost

estimates of PMUs for Phase-II.

26. The petitioner is directed to submit progress of implementation of

scheme to National Power Committee (NPC) for review of

progress and submit the progress report of the project to CERC on

quarterly basis.

…………………………………. ”



TCC Meeting. It had been agreed to convene a Special Meeting with participation

from State Utilities, SRLDC and PGCIL to resolve the issues in this regard.

Subsequently, PGCIL could have one to one meetings with the State Utilities.

PGCIL pointed out that the data portion needed to be frozen for any BOQ to be

finalized.

10.10 SRPC noted the same.

11. UNIFIED REAL TIME DYNAMIC STATE MEASURMENT (URTDSM)

11.1 In the 20th

Meeting of SRPC held on 28th

September URTDSM scheme had been

approved by SRPC. In this regard relevant Paras of Order dated 6th

September

2013 of Hon’ble CERC in respect of Petition No.129/MP/2012 & IA 18/2012 is

furnished below for kind perusal:

“28. .………. PGCIL shall contribute the equity and the debt portion

shall be funded from the PSDF. PGCIL shall make an application

before the Managing Committee of PSDF for reimbursement of funds

equivalent to the loan amount. Since there is a possibility of time lag

between making of the application by PGCIL to PSDF and actual

reimbursement of the fund, PGCIL shall arrange for loan for the

matching amount, which shall be repaid on receipt of the funds from

PSDF. It is clarified that the execution of the scheme should not be

affected in any way on account of the time taken for getting the

funds from PSDF. The tariff of the URTDSM scheme shall be worked

out accordingly.

29. We observe that the URTDSM shall be part of smart grid. The

petitioner shall share all relevant information and coordinate with

SMARTGRID forum and help them in capacity building. Central and

State Power Utilities personnel shall also be involved in the capacity

building by PGCIL through training/workshop in all five regions and

POSOCO shall provide operational feedback for these workshops in

the form of case studies. ”

11.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting PGCIL had

informed that they had taken up the matter regarding funding with the PSD Fund

Manager. PGCIL had been requested to involve the state utilities also in the

capacity building exercise, as contained in the order of Hon’ble CERC.

11.3 SRPC noted the above.


12. SYNCHRONISATION OF SR WITH NEW GRID / 765 kV RAICHUR-SHOLAPUR LINES

12.1 765 kV Raichur-Sholapur lines are expected to be commissioned in the first

quarter of 2014. The commissioning of these lines would enable synchronous

inter connection of SR Grid with NEW grid. A meeting chaired by Chairperson, CEA

was held in CEA on 9th

September 2013 to discuss the issues related to

synchronization of Southern Region (SR) grid with NEW Grid (Minutes enclosed as

Annexure-XVI). After discussion, the following had been concluded:

� Synchronization of SR with NEW grid would be subject to fulfillment of

the following :

� Implementation of recommendation of protection audit of

under frequency load shedding relays settings as per

National Power Committee

� Installation of Special Energy Meters and PMUs at

Sholapur and Raichur ends

� Design and implementation of SPS for Sholapur-Raichur

765 kV lines

� Review of SPS for Talcher-Kolar HVDC bipole.

� Testing of frequency response of HVDC controllers of the

Chandrapur btb, Gazuwaka btb and Talcher-Kolar HVDC

bipole links

� It was also underlined that the following measures should be

expedited for reliable operation of the National grid after

synchronization:

� Tightening of frequency band to reduce requirement of

balancing power

� Free Governor Mode Operation (FGMO)

� Mechanism for tight control on deviations from the

schedule and Area control error

� Primary response testing of generating machines

� Expeditious development of parallel corridors between SR

and NEW grid

� Testing of frequency response of all remaining HVDC

controllers.

� It had been agreed that the initial power flow on these lines will be

restricted to about 800 MW, which will be progressively increased to

2000 MW after commissioning of following transmission elements in


WR and SR. Further, no scheduled exchange of energy will be allowed

on Sholapur-Raichur 765 kV lines for first six months of synchronous

operation. Thus, if the first synchronization of SR with NEW grid takes

place by January, 2014, the LTA/MTOA allocations shall be made from

1st

July, 2014 onwards. Any delay in first synchronization beyond

January 2014, the effective start of LTA/MTOA shall be accordingly

delayed:

Sl.

No. Name of Transmission Element

Executing

Agency

Expected

Commissioning

date

Remarks

1. Aurangabad-Pune 400 kV D/C Reliance Dec. 2103 Court cases pending

2. Parli-Pune 400 kV D/C Reliance Dec. 2103 Court cases pending

3. Raipur-Wardha 765kV D/C PGCIL May 2014 Forest clearance

awaited

4. Raipur 765/400 kV S/S PGCIL Dec. 2013

5. Wardha-Aurangabad 765kV D/C PGCIL July 2014

6. Aurangabad 765/400 kV S/S PGCIL July 2014

7. Sholapur-Aurangabad 765 kV S/C PGCIL Oct. 2014

8. Pune 765/400 kV S/S PGCIL Oct. 2014

9. Gooty-Madhugiri 400 kV D/C PGCIL June 2014 RoW problem

10. Madhugiri 400/220 kV S/S PGCIL June 2014

11. Madhugiri-Yelahanka 400 kV D/C

line

PGCIL June 2014 RoW problem

12. Raichur-Kurnool 765 kV S/C PGCIL Aug. 2014

13. Kurnool 765/400 kV S/S PGCIL Aug. 2014

14. Kurnool-Thiruvalam 765 kV D/C PGCIL Nov. 2014 Forest clearance

awaited

15. Thiruvalam 765/400 kV S/S PGCIL Nov. 2014

16. Vijayawada-Nellore 400 kV D/C PGCIL Nov. 2014 RoW problem

17. Nellore-Thiruvalam 400 kV D/C PGCIL Nov. 2014

18. Thiruvalam-Sholinganallur 400 kV

D/C

PGCIL Nov. 2014 Forest clearance

awaited

12.2 Copy of Detailed Note for synchronization of Southern Region grid with NEW grid

from Member (GO & D), CEA is furnished at Annexure-XVII.

12.3 Another Meeting was also held on 3rd

October 2013 in New Delhi regarding

determination of the Available Transfer Capability for 765 kV Sholapur – Raichur

lines. Utilities of SR had also participated in the Meeting.




� CEA vide letter dated 9th

October 2013 to CERC (Annexure-XVIII) had

suggested that amendments to Grid Code be notified by 30th

November 2013. Utilities would then get enough time to adjust their

operating practices in line with new frequency band. This would be

immensely helpful in the smooth integration of SR and NEW grids and

also in secure operation of the combined grid.

� TANTRANSCO had suggested that PGCIL and other concerned agencies

may accelerate the works, so that commercial scheduled power flow

on the lines would be available in March 2014 itself instead of July

2014 indicated presently. TN had added that power requirements

would be higher in March, being a summer month as against July

which would be a monsoon period. It was noted that as indicated in

the detailed note of Member (GO & D), a total of 18 critical elements

had been identified in NEW Grid and SR Grid which needed to be

commissioned on priority basis. Status of these elements was already

being monitored closely. Further, since two major grids were to be

tied, it was highly essential that adequate operational experience be

gained, prior to scheduled power flow on these lines.

� PGCIL had informed that Raichur-Sholapur circuit under TBCB route

could be slightly delayed. The issue regarding tying up of the SR grid

with NEW grid with single 765 kV line was being studied. They also

informed about the Turkish experience when it was to be tied to the

European grid. Considerable time of more than 11 months was taken

to gain confidence there. ED, SRTS-I had informed that severe RoW

problems existed in respect of Gooty- Madhugiri as well as Madhugiri-

Yelahanka lines, which were very critical. Forum had requested KPTCL

to use its good offices in resolution of the ROW issues.

� SRLDC had opined that it may not be desirable to synchronize SR with

the NEW grid with a single 765 kV line. On a query, PGCIL stated that

as a thumb rule, interconnection capacity needed to be about 10% of

the smaller grid capacity.

� PGCIL had informed that Raichur Substation would be completed by

January 2014 and focused attention was being given to other elements

also.

12.5 Chairman, TANTRANSCO suggested that Chairperson SRPC may kindly take up

with Ministry of Power to use its good offices to expedite the other line being

executed by Patel Engineering under TBCB route, so as to have both 765 KV lines

in place.


12.6 Director (O), PGCIL informed that the line being executed by PGCIL would be ready

in all respects by January 2014. The other line being executed by Patel

Engineering was ahead in the month of May/June 2013 but currently stringing

works were not progressing as desired. He said that the line may thus be delayed

by about two months.

12.7 ED, SRTS-I, PGCIL informed that it was learnt that the TBCB line would be

completed by March 2014.

12.8 MS I/c, SRPC informed that it had been informed by POWERGRID that severe

RoW problems existed in respect of Gooty-Madhugiri as well as Madhugiri-

Yelahanka lines, which were needed to be addressed.

12.9 MD, KPTCL assured that KPTCL would extend necessary cooperation in this regard

and the issue would be taken up appropriately.

13. AUGMENTATION OF TALCHER- II TRANSMISSION SYSTEM

13.1 In the Special Meeting of TCC held on 8th

November 2011, it was noted that a

meeting in this regard was already conducted in CEA on 16th

August 2011.

Further a Petition in this regard had also been filed before Hon’ble CERC. PGCIL

had opined that consolidated efforts were required from SR beneficiaries in view

of the urgency of this system. The LILO of Behrampur-Gazuwaka line was

necessary for the East Coast Energy Generation Project. It was therefore resolved

in Special TCC that Chairperson, SRPC could convey the sentiments of the states

to MoP, pressing for early implementation of the project.

13.2 The following had been noted till 22nd

Meeting of SRPC:

� Government of India order was required in case PGCIL was to

implement this scheme under “urgency” clause.

� In accordance with the decision taken in the 18th

Meeting of SRPC,

Chairperson, SRPC vide letter dated 18th

January 2012 addressed to

Secretary, Ministry of Power had informed that the augmentation of

Talcher-II transmission system being developed by M/s. TTCL was

getting delayed. A petition for adjudication in this regard had also

been filed before Hon’ble CERC. In view of the need for the early

implementation of this project, MoP was kindly requested to examine


the possibility of assigning the above transmission system to PGCIL

under ‘urgency’ clause. APTRANSCO had also filed an additional

counter/affidavit with Hon’ble CERC praying to consider handing over

the scheme to PGCIL under “urgency clause”.

� Chairperson, SRPC vide letter dated 15th

November 2012 addressed

to Secretary (Power), MoP & Secretary, CERC had requested that the

attention of MoP & Hon’ble CERC may please be bestowed on the

matter regarding delay in execution of augmentation of Talcher-II

transmission system.

� TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 5th

January 2013 had stated that all SR

beneficiaries had entered into Transmission Service Agreement with

M/s. TTCL regarding the strengthening of Talcher-II evacuation

system. As per TSA & LOI, M/s. TTCL had to achieve the CoD by

31.03.2013 and submitted bank guarantees were valid up to end of

Jan 2013 with a claim period of one more month. Presently, M/s. TTCL

had approached Hon’ble CERC praying relief in the matter of

extension of time and other issues vide Petition No. 170/MP/2011.

Hence, M/s. TTCL had to be instructed to complete the scheme at the

earliest.

� A Special Meeting of Commercial Sub-Committee was held on 9th

January 2013 to arrive at a consensus in the matter of encashment of

Bank Guarantee by Southern States in the matter of strengthening of

Talcher-II Evacuation System by M/s. Reliance Power Transmission

(M/s. TTCL).

� All the States were requested to approach Hon’ble CERC with IA for

early disposal of the Petition. MoP would also be approached for

awarding the work to PGCIL under the urgency clause.

� Chairperson, SRPC had said that the issue had already been taken up

with Secretary (Power), MoP & Secretary, CERC. He requested the

states also to take up the matter with MoP. SRPC would also take up

the same.

� Chairperson, SRPC vide letter dated 14th

March 2013 addressed to

Secretary (Power), MoP had invited attention to the matter regarding

delay in execution of augmentation of Talcher-II transmission system.

It had also been requested that MoP may consider issuing suitable

directions to Hon’ble CERC since public interest was also involved.

� TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 25th

April 2013 had stated that the

petition was heard on 02nd

April 2013 and the respondents have been

asked to file counter within two weeks.


� In the CERC order dated 9th

May 2013 in respect of TTCL petition, it

had been mentioned that the petitioner shall approach LTTCs

regarding extension of time for execution of the project. LTTCs were

to consider the request of petitioner and convey their approval within

one month.

� APTRANSCO, KPTCL, KSEB, TANTRANSCO & ED, Puducherry had

agreed that no extension could be granted to M/s. TTCL.

� TCC had recommended that TANTRANSCO as lead procurer would

initiate suitable action regarding filing of appropriate response etc.

� Chairperson, SRPC had observed that a resolution could be passed

that the construction of line be handed to PGCIL under ‘Urgency

Clause’.

� APTRANSCO had said that issues regarding Bank Guarantee also

needed to be examined.

� TNEB had opined that TTCL could first be informed that no extension

of time could be given. Consequently it could be recommended that

PGCIL may take up these works.

13.3 Subsequently, in RoP dated 09.07.2013 Hon’ble CERC had directed NKTCL and

TTCL to hold a Meeting with the Procurers of both projects within a period of two

weeks and file the outcome of the meeting before 30th

July, 2013. The

Commission had further directed the lead procurers of NKTCL, namely MSEDCL

and TANGEDCO to coordinate the LTTCs to facilitate the meeting with NKTCL and

TTCL.

13.4 Accordingly, TANGEDCO had proposed to have a meeting with all LTTCs of the

project on 26th

July 2013 so as to convey a collective decision to M/s TTCL and

then later on the same day to also have Meeting with M/s TTCL.

13.5 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had noted the following:

� In the RoP dated 8th

August 2013, Hon’ble CERC had directed CEA to

submit the present status of the NKTCL & TTCL latest by 30th

August

2013. In the RoP dated 10th

September 2013, it is stated that CEA

vide letter dated 29th

August 2013 had confirmed that no progress

had been made for implementation of the project. Commission had

directed PSPCL to file its reply and submissions made during the

hearing on affidavit, with an advance copy to the petitioner and

NKTCL and TTCL by 20th

September 2013. NKTCL & TTCL were to file

their rejoinders, if any, on or before 27th

September 2013. The

Commission had reserved order in the Petitions.


� TANGEDCO had informed that Orders of Appellate Tribunal in this

regard were also awaited.


14. CONSTRAINTS IN TRANSMISSION SCHEMES FOR ISTS

RoW of 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode D/C line

14.1 Till 22nd

Meeting of SRPC the following had been noted:

� PGCIL had stated that the line length was 260 Kms, of which 118 Kms

was in the Karnataka portion. Out of this 118 Kms, 63 Kms of the line

had been completed. Of the balance, 4.5 Kms was in the reserve

forest area, for which clearance had been obtained. 30.5 Kms was in

the coffee plantation and 20 Kms in paddy field areas. With the active

support and guidance of KPTCL & Government of Karnataka, PGCIL

was moving ahead. They had also met Chief Secretary, Government of

Karnataka a few days ago. The compensation as paid by KPTCL was

being followed, which was coming to approximately `1,500 per Coffee

Plant.

� PGCIL had informed that their advocate had suggested seeking certain

legal remedy. On a query from KSEB about completion of the line, it

was informed that if the remedy comes through, then by next year

summer, the line could be ready. PGCIL was putting in all-out efforts

in this regard.

� KSEB had stated that in the event of 400 kV Mysore- Kozhikode line

getting indefinitely delayed, construction of 400 kV line from

Madakkathara to Kozhikode be taken up urgently. It was also stated

that PGCIL be requested to frame an action plan for this proposal with

priority.

� PGCIL had informed that about 55 Kms stretch of the line was having

issues. Works had earlier been initiated under police protection but

suspended on account of the State Assembly Elections. A Meeting at

the highest level was likely to be held shortly. In case the issues were

resolved at the earliest, the line was likely to be completed by March

2014.

14.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had noted the following:

� PGCIL had informed that they had approached Hon’ble Chief Minister

of Karnataka in this matter. State Government had assured support

for the completion of the project. The works had been restarted four

times under Police protection but had to be stopped on account of

various reasons.


� APGENCO had expressed concern that the schemes in power sector

were getting delayed due to a number of issues. Stringent directives

from the highest level were required in case the projects are to be

completed within the targeted time schedule. SRPC forum should

raise its concern in this regard.

� TCC forum had requested KPTCL to use its good offices for early

resolution of the issues so that the line could be commissioned at the

earliest. KPTCL had assured full cooperation for early completion of

the line.

14.3 ED, SRTS-II, PGCIL informed that 4-5 attempts had been made to start the works

under police protection. Except environmentalists and certain fringe groups, most

of the protests had been withdrawn. If a conducive environment was ensured,

the line could be completed at the earliest.

14.4 Chairman, TANTRANSCO requested MD, KPTCL to kindly look into the issue since

line completion would help ease S1-S2 congestion. This line had to be facilitated

so as to relieve transmission congestion in TN due to power flow to Kerala.

14.5 MD, KPTCL assured that they would extend support including at local

administration level to complete this line at the earliest.

15. TRANSMISSION CONSTRAINTS IN INTER-REGIONAL & INTRA-REGIONAL

TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS

15.1 In the 22nd


� PGCIL had informed that the proposal for execution of Srikakulam

Pooling Station – Vemagiri Pooling Station 765 kV D/C line &

Khammam New – Nagarjunasagar 400 kV D/C line by PGCIL under

‘Urgency’ clause had not been agreed to. These lines would therefore

come under TBCB route. PGCIL expressed concern over delay in

commissioning of certain intra-State transmission lines executed by

State utilities. They added that unless downstream system was

coordinated, overall utilization of the system would be less.

� SRLDC had requested TANTRANSCO to furnish the plan and

commissioning schedule of Thiruvalam S/S & lines etc for study

purpose. TANTRANSCO agreed to furnish the same with a copy to

SRPC Secretariat. There would be constraints in evacuating

Krishnapattanam JV power since the TANTRANSCO Thiruvalam system

would not be in place and Nellore- Alamathy line would get

overloaded.


� SRPC Secretariat had pointed out the details in respect of progress of

lines that were coming through the TBCB route were not available

with SRPC. PGCIL was requested to share the information in this

regard. PGCIL agreed to furnish the information available.

� APTRANSCO had pointed out that 1st

Unit (800 MW) of

Krishnapattanam TPS was expected by October/November. The lines

in AP system would also get ready by September. However, the line

from Chittoor to Thiruvalam, as well as Thiruvalam downstream

needed to be coordinated and expedited to ensure proper evacuation

of power. TN to ensure that their system was ready at least by

January 2014. Second unit of Krishnapattanam TPS was expected to

come by January 2014.

� TN had informed that immediate action had been taken after the last

SRPC meeting regarding Thiruvalam S/S. Land had been acquired

under ‘Urgency Clause’. Parallely tendering activities were taken up,

price bids were being processed and contract for 400 KV S/S was likely

to be awarded within 1-2 weeks. The schedule had been crashed to 1

year with incentive for early completion. Packages for associated lines

(`1,000 Crores) had also been floated and the award was likely next

month. TN would try to complete whatever maximum was possible

technically in the available time period.

� PGCIL had stated that in the future, Gujarat could have around 6,000

MW of surplus power. SR constituents could thus avail this surplus

power through an 800 kV HVDC link from Gujarat to a suitable landing

point in SR. The total cost of such a HVDC link could be `12,000

Crores. A dedicated metallic return path could be planned for this

HVDC link. A comprehensive view of the possible inter-Regional link

capacity was also required. The matter could then be taken up for

discussions in the Standing Committee on Power System Planning.

The STUs could come to PGCIL for discussions so that a

comprehensive plan could be worked out.

� It was agreed that the officers from STUs would meet at PGCIL Office,

to work out a comprehensive plan in this regard.

15.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that this issue had been deliberated in the


� TANTRANSCO had informed that order had been placed for

Thiruvalam Substation on 11th

October 2013 and works were in

progress. As a special case, incentive @2% per month was also being

offered for early completion.


� SRLDC had stated that loads at Thiruvalam were also to be ensured by

TN for smooth evacuation of Krishnapattanam JV project. APTRANSCO

added that completion of downstream system in Thiruvalam would

also help ease the S1 – S2 congestion to a certain extent.

TANTRANSCO had informed that the downstream system at

Thiruvalam S/S were in progress and would match the substation.

� SRLDC had stated that total power of only about 1,500 MW could be

evacuated from NTECL Vallur and NCTPS-II. Since its ATS was not in

place, NCTPS would be required to back down in case of any

constraints (Schematic Diagram in Annexure-XIX). Evacuation of

power from Vallur and NCTPS through the existing transmission lines

would cause severe stress. TN Control Room should be instructed to

back down the generation in North Chennai, whenever there were any

line loading issues. Higher management intervention for this purpose

was not warranted. Also, for the proper evacuation of generation of

NCTPS, construction of the 400kV D/C NCTPS – SV Chatram, Alamathy

- S.V.Chatram & Alamathy – Thiruvalam lines were needed to be

expedited.

� TANTRANSCO had stated that the evacuation system was in the

advanced stage of commissioning and they would take appropriate

action during transmission constraints. Seven towers were pending in

respect of the 400 KV D/C Alamathy-S V Chatram line and that the line

would get commissioned by end November 2013. Suitable instructions

would be given to the Control Room regarding backing down

generation in event of line loading issues etc.

15.3 The schedule of commissioning of elements as furnished in the Meeting is as

follows:

Transmission Element Schedule Remarks

400 kV Chittoor-Thiruvalam December 2013 With best efforts & availability of bays at

Chittoor

765 kV Salem-Madhugiri September 2014

765 kV Narendra-Kolhapur March 2015

765 kV Madhugiri-Narendra TBCB

400kV Krishnapattanam-Chittoor Aug/Sep. 2013 APTRANSCO was requested to expedite

commissioning to avoid evacuation

constraints

400/230 kV Thiruvalam S/S November 2014 TANTRANSCO informed that tender had

been awarded.

LILO of 230 kV D/C line proposed.

Expected load would be around 200-300

MW.

400 kV Thiruvalam -Sholingalur

November 2014

400 kV New Somanahalli-Salem November 2014 Expediting for early commissioning.


LILO of existing 400 kV

Somanahalli-Salem at Hosur

December 2013

400 kV Hosur-Electronic City Dropped in 36th

SCPSPSR.

3rd

ICT at Hosur January 2014

400 kV Mangalore (UPCL)-

Kasargode-Kozhikode

KSEB vide letter dated 20.09.2013 had

stated that this line had got Standing

Committee approval and needs to be

taken up by PGCIL at the earliest.

� PGCIL had informed that firm schedule for commissioning of the

above elements would be furnished by the next SRPC Meeting.

� JSWEL vide letter dated 17th

October 2013 (Annexure-XX) had

requested that export of power from the JSW Complex at Torangallu

be also taken into account while finalizing inter-regional & intra-state

transmission elements in Karnataka. This would ensure that Utilities

in power deficit Southern Region were not deprived of `generation

capacity available in JSW Karnataka. In the meeting, JSWEL had

informed that they would bilaterally sort out the evacuation issues

with KPTCL.

� SRLDC had also observed that TANTRANSCO had not furnished the

progress of critical intra-regional elements included in the

Operational Feedback furnished by SRLDC. Some of the other states

had not furnished the time schedule for implementation.

� TCC had suggested that states may kindly furnish complete details in

respect of critical intra-regional elements identified in the

Operational Feedback furnished by SRLDC at the earliest.

15.4 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO informed that shortage of Bidders was

being faced for execution of lines and Substation etc in the State. This was mainly

on account of manpower and capability constraints. With such constraints, the

works were getting delayed. He added that the construction of the

Krishnapattanam-Chittoor line was being constantly reviewed.

15.5 Chairman, KSEB said that this was basically because of corporatization that had

happened in this sector. In the earlier scenario, there used to be small

contractors for execution of the works. However, presently in the Tariff Based

regime, there were a few ‘Big Players’ whose capacity was getting exposed.

Hence in the post reform scenario, this was to be viewed as a basic structural

issue.


15.6 On a request from APTRANSCO, Chairman, TANTRANSCO assured that Thiruvalam

S/S and associated lines were on track and would be completed by the scheduled

dates. He also enquired about the status of the proposed HVDC link from Gujarat

to SR.

15.7 Director (O), PGCIL stated that during discussions in one of the WRPC meetings, it

had been noted that WR may be surplus by about 6,000 – 8,000 MW in another 5

to 6 years time. Hence, it had been contemplated to have a high capacity +/- 800

kV DC line from Gujarat to a suitable location in SR.

15.8 Chairman, KSEB suggested that SRPC may empower PGCIL to prepare the way

forward on this matter.

15.9 Chairman, TANTRANSCO suggested that CEA could be requested to convene a

Meeting to assess the transmission requirements that would be required to

ensure that surplus generation in Gujarat is available to the Southern States with

long term timeframe in consideration.

15.10 DGM, PGCIL informed that import of about 11,500 MW of power to SR had been

planned through various links such as Wardha-Hyderabad, Srikakulam-Vemagiri ,

Raichur- Sholapur besides the Raigarh – Pugalur HVDC link (4,000 MW). Recently,

the capacity of the Raigarh – Pugalur HVDC link had been suggested to be 6,000

MW. Hence, system for dispersal of the additional 2,000 MW of power beyond

Pugalur would be worked out and put up in the next Meeting of Standing

Committee. On top of this, in case requirement of additional Gujarat-SR HVDC link

was felt, the same could be worked out.

15.11 It was agreed that Chairperson, SRPC would take up with CEA with regard to the

proposed HVDC link from Gujarat to SR.

15.12 The status in respect of critical Intra Regional transmission system in the State

Sector is enclosed as Annexure-XXI.


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 as approved in the 4th

SRPC meeting held on 7th

June 2007.

16.2 The updated information furnished in the TCC Meeting in respect of Bus Reactors

is furnished below:

Entity Bus Name Status

KPCL Raichur TPS By March 2014

KPTCL

Hoody

By April 2014 Davanagere

Nelamangala

Talaguppa

16.3 Details of other Bus / Line Reactors / Dynamic Compensation approved in the

Standing Committee / SRPC are given below:

Entity Bus Name Capacity

in MVAR

Approved

in Type Remarks

PGCIL

Vijayawada 2x125 20

th SRPC/

34th

SC Bus

DPR was

prepared.

Nagarjuna Sagar 125 21

st SRPC/

34th

SC Bus

Narendra 125 21

st SRPC/

34th

SC Bus

Hyderabad 125 21st

SRPC

Gooty 125 22

nd SRPC/

36th

SC Bus

Hassan 125

36th

SC

Bus

Khammam 125 Bus

Narendra (New) 125 Bus

Trivandrum 125 Bus

Nellore (Existing) 125 Bus

Yelahanka 2x63 Bus

Nellore PS on

NPS-Gooty Line 2x80 Line

Narendra –

Madhugiri D/C at

each end

4x63 Line

APTRANSCO

Vemagiri 125 21

st SRPC/

34th

SC Bus

Vemagiri 125

36th

SC

Mamidipalli 125

Gajwel 125

Kurnool 125

Kalpakka 125 36th

SC

Sankarapalli 125 36th

SC

Mehboob Nagar 125 36th

SC


Dynamic Compensation

Entity Bus Name SC MVA

GVA/KA

Dynamic

Compensation

(STATCOM)

Approved

in

Mechanically Switched

Compensation (MVAR) Remarks

Reactor Capacitor

PGCIL

Hyderabad 18.4 / 26.5 + 200 MVAR

36th

SC

2x125 1x125

Udumalpet 19.4 / 28.0 + 200 MVAR 2x125 1x125

Trichy 12.5 / 18.0 + 200 MVAR 2x125 1x125

� The existing 63 MVAR Reactors at Hyderabad & Narendra would be

maintained as Regional spare after refurbishment.

� It had also been suggested to utilize the 80 MVAR shunt reactor at

GMR Expansion Plant to contain HV issue at 400 kV Vemagiri.

16.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting, the following had

been noted:

� Line reactor at Guttur S/S was required in addition to the bus reactor

and should also be in place.

� APTRANSCO had informed that M/s GMR had refused to keep the

reactor in Expansion Plant in service since the unit was not

commissioned due to gas unavailability. They had also informed that

there were commercial implications like guarantee and warranties

involved since the plant had not yet been handed over by the EPC

contractor.

� In the 36th

Standing Committee Meeting held on 4th

September 2013,

NPCIL had stated that 1x63 MVAR reactor at Kaiga had already been

installed. However, KPTCL had not installed the reactor at Guttur,

which was overdue. NPCIL had also stated that there was no space in

the switchyard to accommodate any additional reactor. NPCIL had

however been requested to examine the possibility of providing

additional reactor at Kaiga / replace the 63 MVAR with 125 MVAR.

� SRLDC had expressed concern over the delay in commissioning of the

reactors by KPCL/KPTCL. NPCIL had also expressed concern over non-

commissioning of line and bus reactors at Guttur S/S by KPTCL. KPTCL

had informed that the delay was on account of BHEL. However the

matter regarding supply/commissioning was being followed up with

BHEL and a meeting was scheduled to be held next week. The reactor

at Hoody would be shifted to Guttur on a priority basis and would be

commissioned within six months.

� PGCIL had stated that the line reactors of Raichur-Sholapur line could

be utilized as bus reactors for voltage management at Raichur, in case

the constituents agreed. This would be recommended after due

studies.


� SRLDC had proposed that reactors at GMR & LANCO be used for

voltage regulation. The energy consumption on this account could be

accounted as Regional loss. APTRANSCO had informed that in case of

GMR, it was learnt that there were commercial implications like

guarantee and warranties involved since the plant had not yet been

handed over by the EPC contractor.

� TCC had recommended that the reactors at GMR & LANCO be used

for voltage regulation. The energy consumption on this account could

be accounted as Regional loss.

16.5 ED, SRTS-I, PGCIL informed that 765 KV reactor could be utilized for voltage

regulation at Nellore PS. They would come up with a concrete proposal in this

regard.

16.6 SRPC approved that the reactors at GMR & LANCO be used for voltage

regulation. The energy consumption on this account would be accounted as

Regional loss.

17. PROPOSALS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION IN S1 – S2 POWER CORRIDOR/ INTER-

REGIONAL CORRIDOR

17.1 Edamon-Cochin 400 kV line

17.1.1 KSEB had stated that completion of this line was essential for increasing the

import capability of Kerala and also for efficient evacuation. Construction of

this line had been held up due to severe RoW issues.

17.1.2 In the previous SRPC Meetings, the following had been noted:

� PGCIL had informed that adoption of original alignment for Edamon-

Cochin 400 kV line was confirmed. The line was likely to be

completed by December 2014 with best efforts. They were expecting

commitment and clearance from Kerala. KSEB had informed that a

policy decision from the Govt. of Kerala was awaited.

� KSEB had informed that lot of discussions were being held between

the farmers and Government to evolve some solution. The issue

was who would bear the additional financial commitment. It was

pointed out that PGCIL should make all efforts to solve the issue and

commission the asset at the earliest.

� PGCIL had stated that the ramifications of compensation locally in

any one corner of the country would have wide range of implications

globally. Issues could not be seen in isolation and a holistic global

view on these issues needed to be taken. It was stated that PGCIL


and other utilities were building more than 1,00,000 ckt kms of EHV

lines during the 12th

Five Year Plan. PGCIL alone was building more

than 60,000 Ckt Km of lines out of this. While the Line cost was

about Rupees One Crore per Km, the compensation amount itself

probably worked to about Rupees Three Crores per Km. In such a

scenario the cost would be very high and requested Kerala’s support

to complete the line. However, PGCIL was fully committed to build

this line. Discussions with State Government were under way.

� PGCIL had stated that additional compensation of bout `330-350

Crores was not viable. The matter had been discussed a number of

times with the State Government. Payment of additional

compensation would send wrong signals to various other projects of

PGCIL in the country. The material was lying unutilized since there

was no progress since past 5-6 years. Despite all efforts, it appeared

that PGCIL would be constrained to withdraw from the scheme.

� KSEB had expressed surprise that being CTU, PGCIL was suggesting

withdrawal and closure of the package which needed to be noted.

� PGCIL had suggested that KSEB may develop this line and maintain

as its own asset after taking over from PGCIL.

� Chairperson, SRPC had stated that 400 kV Edamon–Cochin was an

important link and considered investment had already been sunk in.

As noted, Government/local administration help was being given to

PGCIL to sort out RoW issues etc in AP. He therefore suggested that

PGCIL & Kerala should make one more effort to come out with some

viable solution. The local administration in Kerala should help PGCIL

in this regard.

� KSEB had informed that they would arrange another High level

Meeting with PGCIL to try to come out of the present impasse.

� Chairperson, SRPC had suggested that PGCIL with assistance from

KSEB/local administration may make attempts to resolve this issue

and put the same to next SRPC for decision.

17.1.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting KSEB had

informed that a high level Meeting had been scheduled to be held on 28th

October 2013 on this matter.

17.2 400 kV Trichur-Kozhikode line (Madakkathara-Areakode)

The following had been noted till 22nd

Meeting of SRPC:

� KSEB had stated that this line had already been approved as Regional

System Strengthening Scheme. North Kerala would benefit as 400 kV

supply could be availed either from Udumalpet or from Mysore for all

the 400 kV substations in Kerala.


� PGCIL had sought utilization of existing 220 kV Madakkathara-

Malaparamba-Areakode S/C feeder. In the 14th

SRPC Meeting, KSEB

had denied the possibility of surrendering the RoW of the KSEB line

since energy security of Malabar region was involved.

� KSEB had stated that 400 kV Madakkathara-Areakode line may be

termed as 400 kV Trichur – Kozhikode line. Multi circuit & multi-level

circuit was their requirement for surrender of corridor.

� PGCIL had informed that the line would be taken up after the

completion of 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode line. The line was feasible

only if the existing corridor was surrendered by Kerala.

� KSEB had reiterated that the line could be taken up only after

commissioning of the 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode line. PGCIL had been

requested to initiate the process so that construction could commence

immediately after 400 kV Mysore-Kozhikode line was commissioned.

18. COAL STOCK POSITION IN THERMAL STATIONS OF SOUTHERN REGION

18.1 The need for maintaining statutory coal stock position in all the thermal stations

at all times had been deliberated in various forum of SRPC.

Constituents/Generating Companies had been requested to please apprise the

Committee of the coal stock position in the thermal stations.

18.2 As agreed in the 22nd

SRPC Meeting, Chairperson, SRPC had taken up the matter

with Member (Traffic), Railway Board regarding nomination of an Officer from

Railways to represent in the SRPC forum. Subsequently, Railways vide letter dated

20th

June 2013 (Annexure-XXII) had nominated an Officer for this purpose.

Accordingly, a Meeting with MCL, Railways and Generating Utilities was held on

01st

October 2013 at Secunderabad (Minutes enclosed as Annexure-XXIII).

18.3 In the Meeting Director, MCL stated that MCL was geared up to meet the

requirements of SR. There had been growth of about 18 % in supply of coal in this

financial year. Capacity constraints were being faced at the rail head as well as

Paradip port. Rs.124 Crore investment had been planned by MCL for doubling

line in the Talcher coal fields and for automatic signaling etc between Talcher and

Paradip. Track doubling was required in the Talcher-Rajatgarh sector while

automatic signaling required in the Khurda-Duvvada & Duvvada-Vijayawada


sections. The question of investment in these areas needed to be sorted out,

since Railways was reluctant to do so. Additional Track Hopper was also required

at Paradip Port. MCL was willing to increase dispatch to the extent possible and

issues could be sorted out bilaterally with MCL. He pointed out that the

production in MCL was expected to go up to 160 MT in 2016-17 from the present

level of 108 MT. With higher production, the constraints in dispatch were to be

addressed. Capacity building was highly essential in this regard.

18.4 MS I/c, SRPC stated that issues such as reduction of unloading time/detention

time, coal held up Paradip Port, signing of new FSA, Washery issues etc were also

needed to be addressed.

18.5 MD, APGENCO thanked MCL for meeting APGENCO’s requirement during past

one year and expressed hope that such support would continue. He also thanked

SRPC for organizing the meeting with MCL and Railways. He said one basic issue

was the congestion between Talcher-Vijayawada. This was a heavy density track

and loading was already around 130%. In the meeting with Railways, need was

being expressed for an additional line. He suggested that MCL may kindly take

the lead and convene a Meeting with the state utilities and Railways so that a

long term solution could be evolved. APGENCO was helping to some extent with

regard to automatic signaling upto Vijayawada. However on account of track

congestion, RSR mode was becoming inevitable, though the cost involved was

more. This additional cost was getting passed on to the end consumers ultimately.

18.6 Chairman, TANTRANSCO said that till end September, TN was getting excellent

support from MCL with supply being around 7 Rakes/day. However, the supply

had now fallen to only around 3-4 Rakes/day. He informed that three additional

600 MW thermal units in the state were running and getting added to the grid.

He requested for better dispatch in the coming months, especially considering the

additional requirement of the new 600 MW units. Import of coal would not fully

address the problem since blending could be done to a limited extent. He said

that supply to central sector projects at Ramagundam, Talcher –II & Simhadri also


needed to be improved. He suggested for assistance from the Singareni mines in

AP under such circumstances.

18.7 Director, MCL suggested that NTPC and State Gencos could take up the issues

with Railways in a joint meeting. He stated that coal supply to TN had been

affected due to recent cyclone in Orissa & AP. At many locations, the railway

tracks had been washed away. However, he assured that the supply situation

would improve in the coming days.

18.8 Chairperson SRPC & CMD APTRANSCO opined that the issue may need to be

highlighted to Railways since it was their primary responsibility to ensure that

goods are transported to the destination through adequate augmentation. In

case Track congestion issues were addressed, it would ensure higher revenues

not only for MCL and Railways but would also help reduce the additional financial

burden on Gencos. The generation levels in the thermal stations would also

improve. He suggested that the issue could be taken up with Railways through

MoP. He stated that Singareni being an open cast mine gets flooded during heavy

rains. There were some quality related issues, but by and large the supplies could

be maintained.

18.9 ED, SRLDC observed that the constraints in coal supply were noted. Since it

appeared that in the short term, there were no ready solutions to address the

coal shortage issue, appropriate Load Generation balance would need to be

maintained by the constituents through load shedding. In view of the prevailing

coal shortage situation, he requested NTPC Talcher & MCL to coordinate

regarding likely coal receipts. This would help in accurate declarations in advance

so as to ensure that spare corridor is released for STOA transactions. This would

help minimize the power shortages in the region to that extent.

18.10 After deliberations, it was agreed that the matter would be taken up with Railway

Board/Ministry of Railways through MoP highlighting the constraints in coal

supply being faced by SR on account of track congestion etc.


18.11 Distribution of Coal Stock at Talcher STPS

18.11.1 Honb’le CERC in its Order dated 23.07.2013 (Para 19) in respect of Petition

No.152/MP/2012 relating to blending of imported coal and other incidental

issues had observed the following:

“The petitioner has alleged that NTPC is maintaining common coal

stock for Talcher STPS Stage-I and Stage II, though separate coal

linkages have been allocated to them. The petitioner has sought

direction to NTPC to maintain separate coal stock on the ground that

the beneficiaries of Talcher STPS Stage-I and Talcher STPS Stage-II are

from different regions. It appears that the question was raised at the

ERPC forum. The ERPC had constituted a Committee with Director-

level executive of the petitioner as one of the members of the

Committee which decided that the coal stock at Talcher STPS should

be distributed between Stage I and Stage II in the ratio of 1:2. The

representative of the petitioner does not appear to have expressed any

dissent or reservation as the decision of the Committee is unanimous

as noticed from the minutes placed on record by NTPC. In view of the

decision in ERPC forum, any direction for maintenance of separate coal

stock for Talcher STPS Stage I and Stage II becomes irrelevant because

the coal is to be used in the agreed proportion.”

18.11.2 In the 86th

Meeting of OCC held on 13th

August 2013, SRLDC had brought this

issue to kind notice. In the 87th


September 2013,

SRLDC had informed that at times, the DC between Stages I & II was not being

carried out in the ratio of 1:2. NTPC had informed that DC could only be

monitored on a monthly basis, since it was difficult to maintain 1:2 ratio on

block or day to day basis on account of number of technical / infrastructural

issues.

18.11.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that this issue had been deliberated in

the TCC Meeting and the following had been noted:

� SRPC had pointed out that the cumulative availability during the

period April – September 2013 for Talcher STPS-I & Talcher STPS-II

were around 85% & 75% respectively. Higher DC during monsoon

(when surrenders are more), peak hour DC being lesser than DC

during other hours etc also needed attention. KPTCL had said that

beneficiaries of Stage-II being located in an energy deficit region

should not face loss of availability as compared to Stage I

beneficiaries.


� NTPC had informed that the ratio between Stage-I & Stage-II was

1.95 (2008-09), 2.15 (2009-10), 2.12 (2010-11), 2.19 (2011-12), 2.02

(2012-13) & 1.8 (2013-14). Ratio of the DCs should be monitored on

a long term basis and certainly not on a day to day basis or block to

block basis. It was evident from the above that for the last four

years, SR constituents had been offered more power.

� SRLDC had pointed out that during coal shortage conditions, it was

observed that DC for Talcher Stage-II was relatively lower compared

to that of Talcher Stage-I.

� After deliberations, NTPC had been suggested to distribute the coal

in 1:2 ratio and accordingly carry out DC declaration. It would also

be ensured that during coal shortage conditions, and with all units of

Stage I & II being available, the DC declaration would be in 1:2 ratio.

18.11.4 Regional ED, NTPC said that on a yearly basis, the DC of Talcher-II had been

relatively higher during the past couple of years. During coal shortage

conditions also, DC of Stage-I & II would be given in an equitable manner.

However as stated earlier, it would not be possible to ensure the 1:2 ratio on a

day to day basis, on account of planned/forced outages of units etc.

19. ITEMS AGREED IN 36TH STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING & 16TH MEETING OF SR

CONSTITUENTS REGARDING LTA AND CONNECTIVITY APPLICATIONS

19.1 The 36th

Meeting of Standing Committee on PSP of SR as well as the 16th

Meeting

of LTA and Connectivity were held on 4th

September 2013 (Minutes attached as

Annexure-XXIV).

19.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that TCC had recommended the schemes

for approval of SRPC.

19.3 SRPC approved the schemes finalized in the36th

Meeting of Standing Committee.

20. IEGC RELATED ISSUES

20.1 Restricted Governor Mode of Operation (RGMO)/FGMO of Generating Units &

MVAR Interchange

20.1.1 In the 22nd


� SRLDC had expressed concern over low RGMO response due to

which, frequency was going as high as 50.8 Hz during long

changeover period. SRLDC was finding it difficult to maintain

integrity of system, since lines were also tripping on over voltage. It


was difficult to bring back the lines after trippings. The margin was

also getting affected. RGMO/FGMO response was being discussed in

every OCC Meeting. Concrete action was required to be taken so

that adequate response is visible in Control Room. State generators

would have to reconcile the response being obtained at generators

with reference to response being observed in SLDC.

� Regulatory requirement was required to be met. Any exemption

required in this regard needed to be obtained from Hon’ble CERC.

Validation of the data observed at station and at SLDC/SRLDC should

be taken up regularly to reduce mismatch of data.

20.1.2 Three meetings regarding the status of implementation of RGMO/FGMO and

performance of units as well as MVAR interchange of generating units were

conducted on 29th

June 2013, 25th

July 2013 & 30th

September 2013. Further,

the issue was also discussed in the Special Meeting of TCC held on 21st

August

2013. The following had been noted in the Meetings:

� Generators had agreed to put all the machines on continuous basis

as per the declaration on RGMO / FGMO with Manual Intervention

(MI) within one week.

� Necessary action would be ensured to avoid any switching off / on

by the unit operators as per their discretion.

� Performance Status would be monitored at senior level and efforts

would be taken to overcome the shortfalls and ensure maximum

possible contribution through RGMO / FGMO with MI.

� SLDCs would also monitor the RGMO / FGMO with MI performance

of the generating units in their control area.

� SRLDC / SRPC Secretariat pointed out with concern that primary

response was necessary for secure grid operation. Generators

needed to ensure the primary response which was also a Regulatory

requirement. In event of inadequate response, since grid security is

at stake, SRLDC / SRPC may be constrained to take up this issue at

appropriate forum.

� Feedback, if any, on the draft of Reactive Power Demonstration

Procedure could be furnished by 7th

September 2013. The

demonstration schedules could be finalized in the next OCC Meeting.

The nodal officers to furnish the MVAR interchange details to the

web group in a timely manner.

Subsequently the Reactive Power Demonstration Procedure was

finalized by SRLDC.


20.1.3 Regarding MVAR Interchange, the following had been noted in the meeting on

25th

July 2013 and also noted in the Special TCC on 21st

August 2013:

� All stations to ensure their GT Tap positions are optimized so as to

bring Grid Voltages to Nominal values.

� Respective SLDCs would monitor VAR Interchange of the generators

under their control and ensure better voltage profile.

� SRLDC could issue messages for Violation of IEGC clause 6.6.6

“The ISGS and other generating stations connected to regional

grid generate/absorb reactive power as per instructions of RLDC,

within capability limits of the respective generating units, that is

without sacrificing on the active generation required at that

time. No payments shall be made to the generating companies

for such VAR generation/absorption.”

‘Regional Grid’ means the entire synchronously connected

electric power network of the concerned Region’

� Demonstration of MVAR capability to be conducted – WR has

already carried out the exercise.

� Under Exciter Limiter (UEL) & Over Exciter Limiter (OEL) to be set

w.r.t. Capability Curves.

� AVR should be kept on Constant Voltage Mode and not on Constant

Power Factor, Constant MVAR Mode or any other mode (manual).

� All the units connected to same bus to have their taps at same

voltage level.

� Units to perform as per Capability Curve – at lower generation levels

more absorption/injection possible.

� Tap positions to be optimized from 01.08.2013 to 31.08.2013. Dates

of Tap changes and set tap positions should be communicated to

SRPC/SRLDC as and when changes are carried out. The same should

also be reflected in the information which would be furnished for

future analysis.

20.1.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC meeting, the following

had been noted:

� SRLDC had expressed concern over the fact that the actual response

observed was only about 15% - 20% of the expected response. The

response was mostly from hydro units and from thermal units in an

inconsistent manner. About 30,000 MW out of 40,000 MW

capacity in the region had been declared to be RGMO/FGMO


compliant. About 5 % of this was expected to be available any time

for system contingencies. At times, even negative response was

witnessed. A Special Web Group had also been created for this

purpose. In the Special Meetings, the generators had agreed that

the data and the analysis portion were in order. Toggling, technical

minimum, water spillage, fuel quality etc. were some of the issues

which were being reported by the generators for non-performance.

SRLDC also added that in case there was any delay was anticipated

in RGMO implementation, adequate response should be ensured

through operator intervention. For this purpose, the alertness and

promptitude of the unit operators was highly essential. They also

stated that SRLDC may be constrained to approach Hon’ble CERC on

this matter.

� APGENCO had informed that with regard to its units, Hon’ble CERC

had passed an Order dated 29th

April 2013. Administrative approval

for `67 Crores had been accorded by the Board for completion of

the works identified but the installation works were likely to be

completed between 2014-16. There were a number of old units

available and hence the works were consuming more time.

� KPCL had informed that the GT Taps at Kadra & Kodasalli had been

changed as per the recommendations finalized in the Special

Meeting on RGMO/MVAR.

� MS I/c, SRPC had said that it was a matter of great concern that

despite conducting a number of Meetings, the response had not

shown much improvement. Adequate RGMO response was one of

the pre-requisites for NEW-SR Grid synchronization scheduled in

the first quarter of 2014. He also added that MVAR capability

demonstration procedure had been finalized in consultation with

the generators. In the OCC Meeting, NTPC had enquired whether

the demonstration was stipulated in IEGC Regulations. It was

clarified that demonstration was not stipulated IEGC Regulations. It

had however been observed during deliberations in the MVAR

Interchange Meetings that machines in some of the stations were

not performing as per capability limits. He pointed out that similar

exercise had been carried out in Western Region & Eastern Region.

� After deliberations, all generators had agreed to carry out MVAR

Capability Demonstration as per the finalized procedure. The

schedule for this purpose would be finalized shortly.


20.1.5 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC stated that such low level of response was a

matter of concern. Though detailed unit-wise analysis had being carried out

in a number of Meetings, not much perceptible improvement had been

observed.

20.1.6 ED, SRLDC said that generators were citing problems such as wet coal, valve

wide open etc for the poor response. However, cushion had to be provided

for RGMO and hence DC declaration was required to be made accordingly.

Due to the poor response, system was being deprived of a self-healing

mechanism. It would be difficult to maintain the grid integrity, if such level of

inadequate response continues.

20.1.7 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO stated that generators may be facing

issues in maintaining reserves in the present power deficit scenario. He also

suggested it could be explored whether the relief could be provided on the

load side.

20.1.8 MD, APGENCO pointed out that the GCV of coal receipts varies widely from

time to time. Hence through appropriate blending etc, the GCV of coal would

need to be maintained which was a challenge by itself.

20.1.9 ED, SRLDC pointed out that in many cases the RGMO performs and give relief.

But as per assessment, during any wet coal or poor coal quality conditions etc,

adequate margins may need to be maintained while declaring. Frequency

excursions during load changeover were mainly on account of non-response

by the machines in RGMO. Three Meetings had taken place in this regard, and

adequate response was highly essential to ensure that grid security was not

threatened. Sudden changes in load were also happening. The matter was

being constantly taken up with the States and also under clause 1.5 of IEGC. In

case load transitions were smoother, the requirement of RGMO response

would get reduced to that extent.

20.1.10 Chairperson, SRPC suggested that feedback in this regard could be further

analyzed. Generators could adopt measures to the extent possible, while load

management could also be improved in the interest of grid security.


20.2 Arranging of interruptible loads in four groups

� In the OCC meetings, it was noted that as per IEGC, to maintain the

frequency within stipulated band and also to ensure network security,

the interruptible loads were to be arranged in four groups of loads.

This was for the purpose of scheduled power cuts/load shedding,

loads for unscheduled load shedding, loads to be shed through UF

relays, df/dt relays and loads to be shed under any SPS Scheme. These

loads were to be grouped in such a manner that there was no

overlapping between different groups of loads.

� SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat had pointed out that the scheme was not

meeting the Regulatory requirement fully and further action was

required in this regard.

20.3 Automatic Demand Management Schemes

� Automatic Demand Management Scheme in line with clause 5.4.2 (d)

of the IEGC was to be provided by all the constituents by 1st

January

2011.

� SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat had pointed out that automated scheme

was to be in place to meet the Regulatory requirement.

20.4 Automatic Load Disconnection Schemes for overdrawing constituents

In the 14th

meeting of SRPC held on 27th

August 2010, it was agreed to implement

Automatic Load Disconnection Scheme for overdrawing constituents with the

following relief:

Sl. No. Constituents Load Relief

1 APTRANSCO 450 MW

2 KPTCL 350 MW

3 KSEB 125 MW

4 TANTRANSCO 650 MW

5 Puducherry 25 MW

� It was noted that the Automatic Load Disconnection Scheme was

part of Automatic Demand Management Scheme.

� States had been requested to ensure adequate load relief in the

interest of grid security.

� SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat had pointed out that automated scheme

was to be in place to meet the Regulatory requirement.

20.5 Sudden Change in Drawal/Frequency Excursion

20.5.1 States had been requested to adhere to drawal schedule and also not to under

draw during high frequency conditions.


20.5.2 In the earlier OCC/TCC/SRPC Meetings, SRLDC had brought to attention the

provisions of clause 5.2 (j) of IEGC Regulations. No user was to cause sudden

variation in its load by more than 100 MW without prior intimation to and

consent of the RLDC. Similarly no user should reduce the generating unit

output by more than 100 MW without prior intimation to and consent of the

RLDC. Necessary action was sought in respect of demand and generation

management as well as power purchases, so that clause 5.2 (j) of IEGC

Regulations is not violated.

20.5.3 During the 84th

to 88th

Meetings of OCC, noncompliance in this regard had

been consistently highlighted by SRLDC. The issue has been reported under

Clause 1.5 of IEGC and MS I/c, SRPC has also taken up the issue with the

constituents for compliance.

20.5.4 In the TCC Meeting, SRLDC had pointed out that despite repeated reporting of

non-compliance, there had been no perceptible improvement observed.

20.5.5 DGM, SRLDC pointed out that periodic sharp frequency excursions of more

than 1.0 Hz were still being observed. The process needed to be streamlined

so that for purposes such as for maintaining load generation balance, load

shedding etc, sudden changes in the loads are avoided.

20.5.6 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO stated that SLDCs needed to further

stagger major loads and plan in coordination so as to avoid such excursions.

20.5.7 Utilities were requested to kindly initiate corrective action to meet the

Regulatory requirements.

20.6 Inadequate UFRs and df/dt reliefs

20.6.1 In the ROP w.r.t. Petition 263/MP/2012 it was mentioned that the loads

available for relief in the identified feeders were far below the value declared

by the constituents. It was noted that Hon’ble Commission had directed that

the issue be discussed in RPC level meeting to decode the quantum of load

which should be increased to give desired result in a time bound manner.


Subsequently RoP on hearing dated 09.04.2013 w.r.t Petition 263/MP/2012

had also been issued and the Commission had reserved the Order.

20.6.2 The Issue regarding inadequate relief through UFRs and df/dt relays had

consistently been raised by SRLDC & SRPC Secretariat. SRLDC had also

reported the issue under 1.5 of IEGC on a number of occasions. Member

Secretary, SRPC had taken up the matter with Constituents for necessary

compliance. Recent letter dated 13th

September 2013 in this regard is

enclosed as Annexure-XXV.

20.7 Issuance of violation messages

In OCC Meetings, States had suggested that the issuance of messages by RLDCs

needed to be on uniform basis. They had also felt that there could be

differentiation in nomenclature for messages issued for violations when system

parameters were within IEGC range and beyond. MS I/c, SRPC had taken up the

issue vide letter dated 16th

May 2013 & 20th

June 2013. In this regard, NLDC’s

letter dated 11th

July 2013 is also enclosed as Annexure-XXVI.

21. REVIEW OF PERFORMANCE OF ULDC SCHEME

21.1 In the 87th

Meeting OCC held on 11th

September 2013, SRLDC had informed the

following:

a) Standby Data Channel Status

Non-availability of standby data channels at, Hiriyur, Nelamangala,

Talcher RCI, NLC TS-II Expansion, Kochi, LANCO, NPS, Nellore SAS,

NTECL, Warangal & Bhadravathi .

b) Voice Communication status

Non-availability of voice communication at Pugalur, Kolar HVDC, Kolar

HVAC, Hiriyur, Kalavindapattu, Mysore, Narendra, Trivandrum, Talcher

HVDC, Hassan, Kochi, Palakkad, Puducherry, Munirabad, Nellore,

Gazuwaka, Bhadravathy, NTPC Kayamkulam, MAPS, Kaiga, NLC Stg-II,

NLC TS-I Expansion & NLC TS-II Expansion.


c) Internet communication

Dual internet communication required for the Reliable/Dedicated

communication for system operation.

d) Pending field inputs

Details of pending inputs were also available on SRLDC web site .Members

with login details could download the details for necessary action.

21.2 In the matter of Petition No.56/SM/2013, Hon’ble CERC (date of hearing

23.07.2013) had directed RPCs to monitor rectification of defects in the telemetry

system by Utilities. SRPC Secretariat vide letter dated 12.09.2013 (Annexure-

XXVII) had requested the utilities to communicate the status of pending field

inputs as well as the action plan to rectify the same.



� POSOCO vide letter dated 25th

September 2013 had furnished copy of

telemetry status submitted to the Hon’ble Commission to SRPC for

perusal and necessary action (Relevant extract of the letter is given in

Annexure-XXVIII).

� SRLDC had informed that in respect of pending data from Talcher, all

links for ICCP configuration at ERLDC had been utilized. PGCIL needed

to explore provision of hardware splitter at Talcher. In the meeting,

PGCIL had stated that they would explore the possibility and

complete this works at the earliest by having the splitter at Talcher as

suggested. They also informed that the standby data channel in

respect of Hiriyur and Kochi had been made available. Nelamangala

would be made available by December 2013.

� After deliberations, all the utilities had been requested to furnish

status updates with regard to pending field inputs within 15 days for

further reporting to Hon’ble Commission.

21.4 SRPC noted the above and suggested necessary action for compliance.

22. AMC FOR SCADA

22.1 In the Special TCC Meeting held on 24th

June 2013, SRLDC had informed that the

AMC for SCADA with M/s GE would be expiring on 6th January 2014. SRLDC had

sought an extension of six months but M/s GE was insisting for minimum one year

contract period with escalated prices. Since the new system would be coming in


phased manner it was suggested that SCADA team of the Constituents would

maintain the system with mutual assistance. However, if any Constituent required

AMC with M/s GE, it could enter into the agreement individually.

22.2 In the Special TCC Meeting held on 21st

August 2013, SRLDC had further informed

that M/s. GE had furnished the new rates which were around 50% more than the

existing rates. SRLDC had taken up the issue for extension of contract (six months)

on existing rates and M/s. GE was to revert back. SRLDC had opined that with 10

years of experience, the Region as a whole had sufficient experience to handle

minor issues and for major issues GE could be called on call basis. If any State

wants to have extended AMC, it could directly enter into contract with M/s. GE.

Karnataka & Tamil Nadu were not requiring any support and the maintenance

was required by Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Puducherry & PGCIL (SRLDC).

22.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c informed that in the TCC Meeting the following had been

noted:

� SRLDC had furnished the quote details received from OEM (Annexure-

XXIX).

� AP, Kerala & SRLDC were agreeable for AMC for a period of six months.

� TN was agreeable for AMC for a period of three months.

� Puducherry mentioned that in case the cost was more than the

present cost, they would not be requiring AMC.

� SRLDC had informed that they had already requested GE to continue

the AMC on the same rate, terms & conditions. However, GE had

communicated that they would not be in a position to reduce the

quoted rate.

� AP had requested SRLDC to look into the requirement of AMC beyond

six months period also, considering the progress of the civil works of

the new SCADA system in AP and accordingly negotiate with GE for

such details also.

� Forum felt that the rate reduction by OEM may not happen so easily.

However, the constituents requested SRLDC to put all possible efforts

to negotiate the price to the extent possible and finalize the contract,

thus maintaining continuity of AMC service.


22.4 ED, SRLDC informed that they were negotiating with the vendor to try and bring

down the cost. The order would be placed sometime next month.

22.5 Chairperson SRPC suggested that for future supplies, maintenance requirements

should also form part of the initial contract. ED, SRLDC informed this aspect had

been taken care in the new SCADA system under implementation.

22.6 SRPC noted the deliberations held in the TCC Meeting in this regard.

23. NON-PAYMENT OF TRANSFORMER CHARGES TO TNEB BY SOUTHERN REGION

CONSTITUENTS

23.1 TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 5th

January 2013 had stated as follows:

� During 16th

SRPC Meeting held on 30th

April 2011 at Goa, it was

approved that the payment of `15 lakhs/month to TANTRANSCO

towards transmission charges for TNEB owned Transformers at

Sriperumpudur and Salem be continued as computations were in

accordance with the PGCIL methodology and the payment stopped by

the Constituents could be released.

� But in spite of repeated request by Tamil Nadu till date, KSEB has to

pay an amount of `87,21,921/- and KPTCL an amount of

`1,30,40,030/- for the period from August 2009 to till date, whereas

APTRANSCO has to pay an amount of `75,34,753/- for the period from

May 2011 to till date.

� The decision taken and finalized in the SRPC Meeting is not being

honoured in a good spirit by the Constituents.

23.2 In the 21st

& 22nd


� TANTRANSCO had again requested the constituents to release

transformer charges in line with decision taken in 16th

SRPC Meeting.

� KSEB had informed that there were some other arrears also pending

between KSEB & Tamil Nadu.

� After deliberations, it was decided that an exclusive high level meeting

of Technical/Finance officials of the utilities be convened to discuss all

payment issues in totality.

� A Meeting was held on 5th

March 2013 at SRPC, Bangalore.

� TANTRANSCO had informed that KPTCL had to pay an amount of

`1,43,44,898/- towards the charges payable for the fixed CTU assets

owned by TNEB i.e. transformers at Sriperumbudur & Salem.

� KPTCL had been requested to kindly expedite payment of transformer

charges and not to link the same with any other payment issues.


23.3 In the 22nd

Meeting of Commercial Sub-Committee held on 31st

July 2013,

TANTRANSCO had stated that PCKL had advised them to settle the transformer

charges with ESCOMs.

23.4 TANTRANSCO had again brought to attention the matter regarding non realization

of transformer charges vide letter dated 25th

September 2013 (refer Annexure-

XIV).

23.5 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that this issue was deliberated in the TCC

Meeting and the following had been noted:

� KPTCL had stated that while the DISCOMs of Karnataka were to pay

around `1 Crore to TN, KPTCL was to receive an amount of around `6

Crores towards wheeling charges. The issues needed to be settled in

totality and had suggested for one to one Meeting to discuss

payment related issues.

� TANTRANSCO had informed that in the 16th

Meeting of SRPC, the

Committee had approved the payment to TANTRANSCO and AP &

Kerala were paying the charges. The issue should not be linked to

other pending commercial issues and had requested KPTCL to release

the payments that were due. In true spirit the decisions taken in the

SRPC forum needed to be honored and implemented by all the

utilities.

23.6 Director (Opn.), TANTRANSCO expressed concern over the delay in payment by

Karnataka.

23.7 Director (Tr.), KPTCL said that they were willing to have one to one Meetings and

settle the issues. However, reconciliation with regard to payment of wheeling

charges was also to be carried out.

23.8 MS I/c, SRPC said that decision regarding payment of transformer charges to TN

had been taken in the SREB/SRPC forum and thus was needed to be honoured.

23.9 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that payments in respect of

settled issues be released. Payments may not be linked with other unsettled

issues to the extent possible. Efforts should also be made to sort out unsettled

issues and come up with amicable solutions in the spirit of healthy regional

cooperation.


23.10 MD, KPTCL assured that needful would be done in the matter. However, he

sought similar reciprocation in respect of dues payable to Karnataka.

24. PENDING ARREARS PAYMENT BETWEEN BENEFICIARY STATES IN SR

24.1 It had been agreed in the 20th

Meeting of SRPC on 28th

September 2012 that the

issue of pending arrears other than transformer charges be discussed in the next

meeting of the Commercial Sub Committee.

24.2 In the 20th

Commercial Sub Committee Meeting, APTRANSCO and Puducherry had

informed that there were no pending arrears between them and other

beneficiary States of SR. After deliberations, it was agreed that a Special Meeting

would be held on 5th

December 2012 at Bangalore to discuss and resolve payment

related issues. Accordingly, a Special Meeting to discuss and resolve the payment

related issue was held on 5th

December 2012 at Bangalore.

24.3 In the 21st

& 22nd


� KPTCL had informed that there were considerable amount outstanding

(around `6 Crores) from TN. TANTRANSCO had clarified that they had

furnished the clarifications vide letter dated 5th

January 2013. TN had

also informed that after adjustments, net amount was receivable from

KSEB (around `5.6 Crores).

� It was agreed that a high level meeting of Technical/Finance officials of

the utilities be convened to discuss all payment issues in totality.

� A Meeting was held on 5th

March 2013 at SRPC, Bangalore.

� KSEB had intimated that an amount of `3,91,60,282/- would be

released. Subsequently, TANTRANSCO had acknowledged the receipt

of payment of `3,91,60,282/- from KSEB towards various pending

issues. However issues regarding transmission and wheeling charges

bill for the period August 2011 to October 2012 etc have been raised

for release of payment.

� A Meeting was conducted on 9th

May 2013 wherein it was agreed that

the payment figures with reference to transmission & wheeling

charges, reactive charges etc would be reconciled at an early date to

facilitate early settlement of the issues. The coordinators already

identified for the purpose had been requested to take active role in

this regard.


� In the 23rd

Meeting of SRPC, States were requested to kindly reconcile

the figures within one month time and also release the payments at

the earliest.

24.4 TANTRANSCO had brought to attention the following issues vide letter dated 25th

September 2013 (refer Annexure-XIV):

� Monetary Compensation to be paid by APTRANSCO & KPTCL

� Frequency Linked Penalty/Incentive Scheme for over drawal/under drawal

of shares

24.5 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting the following had

been noted:

� CMD, APTRANSCO vide letter dated 21st

October 2013 (Annexure-

XXX) had requested TANGEDCO to kindly consider the

opinion/decision of APTRANSCO in the 128th

Meeting of SREB and

issue necessary instructions to the concerned officials to withdraw the

claim of about `10.73 Crores on APPCC. In this regard, MS I/c, SRPC

had brought the following to the kind attention of TCC:

� In the 134th

Meeting of SREB, APTRANSCO had proposed

that the matter regarding cost sharing of State owned

transmission lines/ICTs be dropped. The same had also been

agreed.

� There was no disagreement recorded in subsequent

SREB/SRPC fora regarding payments relating to monetary

compensation.

� In the 22nd

Meeting of Commercial Sub-Committee, APPCC

and KPTCL had requested to furnish the details with

supporting copies of REA. The same had been made

available to them.

� TANTRANSCO had stated that as agreed in the 22nd

Meeting of SRPC,

they would take up the issues related to ‘Frequency Linked/Incentive

Scheme for over drawal/under drawal of shares’ with Karnataka & AP

bilaterally.

� It had been agreed to put up the above in the SRPC Meeting for an

appropriate decision.

24.6 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO suggested that payments in respect of

issues settled in the SRPC forum such as the monetary compensation scheme be

released by the concerned states, without linking it to other disputed issues.


24.7 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that as a general principle, undisputed amounts

should be cleared without linking to disputed ones. Discussions/Meetings in

respect of disputed amounts or issues could always be held among the States.

24.8 SRPC noted that all undisputed payments needed to be cleared without linking to

other payments. Disputed issues could be discussed/reconciled amicably among

the States.

24.9 It was also noted that as agreed in the 22nd

Meeting of SRPC, TANTRANSCO would

take up issues relating to ‘Frequency Linked/Incentive Scheme for over

drawal/under drawal of shares’ with Karnataka & AP bilaterally.

25. OUTSTANDING DUES BETWEEN WR & SR

25.1 In the 22nd


� TANTRANSCO had stated that the pending arrears between WR & SR

constituents were also pending for a long time. The details in respect

of MSEB are to be obtained from WRPC by SRPC and sorted out at the

earliest.

� A Meeting between SR & WR constituents on this issue was scheduled

to be held on 29th

May 2013 at WRPC, Mumbai.

25.2 In the 22nd

Meeting of Commercial Sub Committee held on 31st

July 2013, the


� The constituents were requested to furnish the details which were

sought by the WR constituents in the meeting held on 29th

May 2013

at Mumbai.

� KSEB had informed that the details sought by MSEDCL had been

furnished.

25.3 Another Meeting in this regard with the constituents of WR was scheduled to be

held on 21st

October at Bangalore.

25.4 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that the Meeting scheduled for 21st

October 2013 at Bangalore had been postponed on the request of MP Power

Management Co. Ltd. However, another Meeting in this regard would be

convened at the earliest.


26. GRID OPERATION

26.1 Achievement of the Constituents

� Continued grid discipline displayed by Karnataka with ‘Nil’ violation

messages

� NLC TS-I Expn. had achieved more than 100 % availability till date.

� Railways started participating in the OCC Meetings as per directives of

MoP.

� Gazuwaka AC by pass mock exercise completed by SRLDC with

participation of NTPC, PGCIL, SRLDC, APTRANSCO & ERLDC.

� SPS for KKNPP tested with coordination from utilities.

� Work shop on Black Start Restoration completed by SRLDC.

� Effective visits of Protection Experts to various substations to analyse

grid incidents/disturbances.

� Excellent cooperation by utilities during agitation and cyclone in

Andhra Pradesh.

26.2 Grid events during May 2013

� 8.1 MW of IPP Wind Mill added in Tamil Nadu.

� 230/110 kV, 2x100 MVA Transformer at Aliyar test charged on

20.05.2013 with 3x333.33 MVA Pr. Transformer by TANTRANSCO.

� 230/110 kV, 100 MVA additional Power Transformer commissioned at

Manali S/S on 31.05.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

26.3 Grid events during June 2013

� 20.60 MW of Wind Mill (Private Sector) Installed Capacity added in

Tamil Nadu.

� Udumalpet - Kadamparai 230 kV SC line Kundah conductor at location

No.1-148(2.03 km) at proposed Aliyar S/s replaced with Zebra

Conductor on 10.06.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

� LILO of 230 kV MTPS-Gopi line at the proposed Anthiyur 230 kV S/s

energized on 14.06.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

� LILO of 230 kV Korattur-Koyambedu DC feeder by laying UG 230

KV1X1200 Sqmm cable for 0.3 ckm energized on 28.06.2013 by

TANTRANSCO.

� Thudiyalur 230/110 kV, 80 MVA Transformer augmented to 100 MVA

and commissioned on 13.06.2013 by TANTRANSCO.


26.4 Grid events during July 2013


Tamil Nadu.

� 230 kV S/C line on D/C towers from Arasur 400 kV S/S to Palladam 230

kV S/S with zebra conductor (55.4 ckm) was energized on 25.07.2013

by TANTRANSCO.

� 110 kV S/C line from common point to Bhavani Kattalai Barrage II (22

ckm) was energized on 12.07.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

� 2x100 MVA, 230/110 kV Kayambedu (CMRL), GIS was test charged on

11.07.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

26.5 Grid events during August 2013


Tamil Nadu.

� NTECL Vallur STPS Unit # 2 (500 MW) CoD on 25.08.2013.

� 2 Units (5 MW each) of Karikkayam HEP in private sector was

commissioned on 29.08.2013 & 02.09.2013 respectively in Kerala.

� 400 kV Bhoopalapally – Gajwel D/C line of 131.66 Km was charged

from Gajwel end on 30.08.2013 by APTRANSCO.

� Additional power transformer of 100 MVA, 230/110 kV at Kayathar

was commissioned on 21.08.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

26.6 Grid events during September 2013

� 34.79 MW of Wind Mill (Private Sector) Capacity was added to Tamil

Nadu during the month.

� 400 kV Bhoopalapally-Gazwel D/C line of 131.66 KM was charged

from Gazwel end on 30.08.2013 and put into commercial operation

from 26.09.2013 by APTRANSCO.

� 230/110 kV, 100 MVA additional Power Transformer at Theni was

commissioned on 25.09.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

� 230 kV UG cable from Elephant Gate to Mylapur 230 kV SS was

radially energized from Mylapur on 02.10.2013 by TANTRANSCO.

� 220 kV D/C line from 220 kV Ghataprabha station to 220 kV Chikodi

Station (72.634 ckm) commissioned on 07.09.2013 by KPTCL.


26.7 Installation of Shunt Capacitors

The progress of installation of capacitors by the constituents during the year

2013-14 is furnished in the Table below:

(Figures in MVAR)

State Requirement for

2013-14

Installed during the year 2013-14

(till 30th

September 2013)

Andhra Pradesh 55.00 0

Karnataka 81.44 0

Kerala 10.00 0

Tamil Nadu 2.60 35.00

Total 149.04 35.00

States were requested to expedite installation of capacitors.

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 is also being discussed

in the OCC meetings. The following had been observed with regard to the period

from May 2013 to September 2013:

Month

Minimum to Maximum Demand Variation %

Andhra

Pradesh Karnataka Kerala Tamil Nadu Puducherry

Southern

Region

May 2013

Highest 30.11 41.83 40.15 29.99 32.18 29.59

Date 12th

(Sun) 21st

(Tue) 21st

(Tue) 18th

(Sat) 20th

(Mon) 21st

(Tue)

Lowest 8.91 16.86 21.60 6.63 11.00 7.42

Date 17

th (Fri) 3

rd (Fri) 11

th (Sat) 22

nd(Wed) 19

th (Sun) 16

th (Thu)

Average 18 24 29 17 19 13

June 2013

Highest 29.34 41.18 50.23 20.58 30.38 20.32

Date 16th

(Sun) 1st

(Sat) 16th

(Sun) 4th

(Tue) 30th

(Sun) 4th

(Tue)

Lowest 13.43 22.49 23.25 7.57 14.35 13.07

Date 29th

(Sat) 19th

(Wed) 15th

(Sat) 30th

(Sun) 2nd

(Sun) 30th

(Sun)

Average 23 29 42 15 22 16

July 2013

Highest 24.84 36.90 49.29 20.45 36.29 25.88

Date 20th

(Sat) 25th

(Thu) 29th

(Mon) 22nd

(Mon) 16th

(Mon) 23rd

(Tue)

Lowest 9.86 22.38 40.28 5.22 14.03 13.32

Date 2nd

(Tue) 9th

(Tue) 30th

(Tue) 7th

(Sun) 6th

(Sat) 5th

(Fri)

Average 19 29 45 15 26 18


August 2013

Highest 24.13 34.25 52.06 30.04 45.94 26.57

Date 1st

(Thu) 16th

(Fri) 20th

(Tue) 19th

(Mon) 13th

(Tue) 16th

(Fri)

Lowest 12.64 18.62 35.86 12.46 16.38 10.97

Date 8th

(Thu) 10th

(Sat) 18th

(Sun) 25th

(Sun) 4th

(Sun) 11th

(Sun)

Average 17 27 43 20 28 18

September 2013

Highest 18.97 40.33 52.54 30.64 54.99 27.50

Date 23rd

(Mon) 16th

(Mon) 18th

(Wed) 10th

(Tue) 12th

(Thu) 10th

(Tue)

Lowest 10.18 26.42 35.46 9.67 18.42 11.75

Date 2nd

(Mon) 5th

(Thu) 1st

(Sun) 30th

(Mon) 1st

(Sun) 11th

(Wed)

Average 16 33 43 21 29 21

Note: Highest & lowest figures for the month have been computed based on the daily values.

27.2 Constituents were kindly requested to implement suitable DSM measures and

also share the information with other constituents for mutual benefit.

28. FREQUENCY OF OPERATION OF SOUTHERN GRID

28.1 The frequency of operation of the Southern Grid for the period under review is

furnished below:

Month

Percentage of time when frequency (Hz)was Month

Avg.

freq.

Less

than

49.0

49.0

to

49.2

49.2

to

49.5

49.5

to

49.7

49.7

to

50.0

50.0

to

50.2

More

than

50.2

Within

IEGC

range

May 2013 0.00 0.06 0.32 7.76 65.43 21.49 4.94 86.92 49.90

June 2013 0.01 0.00 0.08 3.51 55.50 32.64 8.26 88.14 49.97

July 2013 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.07 47.94 40.40 9.58 88.34 50.00

Aug. 2013 0.00 0.01 0.07 2.52 38.51 45.85 13.00 84.36 50.03

Sep. 2013 0.00 0.00 0.15 2.99 45.17 41.25 10.44 86.42 50.00

28.2 During the period under review, caution / violation messages (Annexure-XXXI)

were issued to the constituents by SRLDC. Matter regarding overdrawal at low

frequency by some constituents is being regularly deliberated in the OCC forum.

28.3 Constituents were kindly requested to maintain appropriate load generation

balance and avoid any overdrawal at low frequency so as to operate the grid

parameters as per the provisions of IEGC Regulations.

29. TRIPPING DETAILS

29.1 In the OCC/Protection Sub Committee Meetings, SRLDC had expressed serious

concern over the fact that the information regarding tripping details with relay


indications was awaited from nearly all the constituents. They had stated that the

entities should furnish the preliminary report on ‘events’ in compliance of IEGC

Regulation, 5.9.6(a). Detailed report along with necessary information as

mandated by IEGC should be followed. CEA Regulation mandate furnishing of the

reports within 24 hrs. It was also a matter of concern that certain events had not

been reported at all to SRLDC. SRLDC vide letter dated 29th

May 2013 had

reported non compliance under Clause 1.5 of IEGC and MS I/c, SRPC had taken up

the issue with the utilities for compliance vide letter dated 30th

May 2013

(Annexure-XXXII).

29.2 Constituents had been requested to kindly identify and implement an effective

methodology so that requisite information is made available to SRLDC/SRPC

within the time frames specified in Regulations.

29.3 The matter regarding tripping of lines on over voltage at Nellore and NPS on 10th

September 2013 was deliberated in the 87th

meeting of OCC. The

Recommendations in this regard were communicated vide letter dated 12th

September 2013 (Annexure-XXXIII).



� SRLDC had expressed concern over non receipt of tripping details in

a timely manner as per provisions of the Regulations. Web based

application had also been developed for this purpose by SRLDC.

Constituents could log in and upload the relevant details. User

Name and Password had been made available to the constituents.

Hence, they could also monitor whether the relevant details had

been submitted or not. It was disturbing that in certain cases, data

for events that had occurred in July 13 were still awaited. Number

of events were recurring like at Sharavathi & Srisailam. It was

highly essential to analyze events, identify and implement remedial

corrective actions which would be possible only if complete / timely

information was furnished. Petition has been filed before Hon’ble

CERC and listed for hearing.

� PGCIL had informed that necessary instructions had already been

communicated to the field to furnish the tripping details in a timely

manner. However, in certain cases the ends were under

operational control / owned by other utilities, though the line


belonged to PGCIL. Regarding the issue of using the 765 kV line

reactors at Nellore PS, the matter was being studied and they

would come up with a proposal in this regard.

� Constituents had been requested to post the details in SRLDC web

portal and to SRPC Secretariat (by e-mail) within the specified time

frame.

29.5 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO said that a system should be in place to

submit the required tripping details to SRLDC/SRPC within the scheduled

timeframe.

30. OPERATION OF TALCHER-KOLAR HVDC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IN GROUND

RETURN MODE

30.1 In various forums it had been noted that the flow needed to be restricted to 150

MW in GRM. Till 22nd


� 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.

� PGCIL had informed that tentative cost for the study was around `90

lakhs which would not be passed on to constituents.

� PGCIL in consultation with KPTCL, CEA & other constituents would

examine and finalize the Terms of Reference etc on proposal for hiring

international experts on GR mode of operation of Talcher-Kolar HVDC

which would then be put up to SRPC.

� The Committee had approved the terms of reference for hiring

International Experts as finalized in the Special Meeting held on 20th

July 2011 and had suggested that PGCIL might go ahead with the hiring

of international experts.

� PGCIL in consultation with CEA had subsequently appointed

International Consultants with the approved Terms of Reference.

PGCIL had furnished the preliminary findings in respect of GRM

operation of Talcher-Kolar link by the international experts.

� A Special Meeting of TCC with the International Consultants for

Review of Ground Return Mode Operation of Talcher-Kolar HVDC Link

was held on 9th

May 2012 at Bangalore.

� KPTCL had informed that they were approaching their consultant for

further study and that they would revert back after study. There were

issues regarding replacement of star-star transformers in that area.


� PGCIL had opined that this issue was bilateral in nature and should be

discussed between KPTCL & PGCIL. PGCIL had pointed out that

international consultant had concluded the design of existing

electrode station was adequate.

� It was agreed that the issue would be discussed bilaterally between

KPTCL & PGCIL. The final outcome would be put up to TCC/SRPC

meetings. Till such time flow would be restricted to 150 MW in GRM

mode.

� Copy of the Report prepared by the Consultant Group forwarded by

PGCIL was circulated to the Members vide SRPC letter dated 1st

August

2012. As agreed in the 19th

SRPC Meeting held on 1st

June 2012, the

matter was to be discussed bilaterally between KPTCL & PGCIL.

� KPTCL had sought opinion of their consultant (M/s PRDC) on the

report furnished by PGCIL. It was also desired that after the

finalization of the issue between PGCIL and KPTCL, the outcome would

be deliberated in the OCC meeting before putting up to TCC/SRPC.

PGCIL had also sought the status of measurement as recommended by

the International Consultants.

� KPTCL had informed that they had received a letter from PGCIL

agreeing for payment to their consultant towards charges for testing

at additional locations.

� PGCIL had informed that they had agreed to pay the KPTCL consultant

charges of about `4-5 lakhs for measurement at additional locations,

which are to be taken up.

� KPTCL had informed that they had taken up the issue with PGCIL for

testing etc.

� PGCIL had informed that all the other issues had been resolved and

testing would be carried out after obtaining concurrence from SRLDC.

GRM situation could be simulated by creating unbalance in the poles.

There was no requirement of any shutdown for this purpose

� TCC had decided that the matter would be deliberated in OCC meeting

to finalize the course of action.

30.2 In the 87th


September 2013 it was noted that M/s

PRDCL required another set of reading. For the next GRM testing, KPTCL had

informed that it was learnt from PGCIL that any date during September/October

2013 would be suitable to them. KPTCL had accordingly taken up the matter with

the consultants M/s. PRDC.


30.3 In the Meeting, MS I/c informed that in the TCC Meeting it had been noted that

the second set of measurements were proposed to be conducted on 9th

November 2013. PGCIL had agreed that the second set of measurements could be

carried out on 9th

November.

31. PHYSICAL AND CYBER SECURITY/ CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLAN/ BLACK START

PROCEDURES

31.1 Physical and Cyber Security

31.1.1 Status update on Crisis Management Plan (C&DMP) of Power Sector is to be

furnished every quarter. The information regarding Cyber Security is to be

furnished to Chief Engineer, DPD, CEA, Sewa Bhavan, New Delhi-110066.

Report on Physical Security, other Mock Drills for CMP, Mock Drill for Black

Start Restoration is to be furnished to Chief Engineer, DMLF, CEA, Sewa

Bhavan, New Delhi-66. A copy of the reports is to be sent to SRPC Secretariat

([email protected] and [email protected]). The practices being

followed in respect of Cyber Security/Physical Security/CMP/Mock Drills w.r.t.

Black Start was also required to be communicated. The issue was taken up

with the utilities. SRPC letter dated 18th

July 2013 enclosing the E-mail

received from CEA in this regard is at Annexure-XXXIV. The E-mail received

from NTPC, enclosing AGM (NTPC) letter dated 25.02.2013 regarding CERT-

Thermal Activities-CMP is at Annexure-XXXV. The format for furnishing the

details is given at Annexure-XXXVI.

31.1.2 Regarding Cyber Security, NTPC had communicated that they had been

awaiting coordinators from State Utilities and had requested CEA and MoP to

get the contract details of Thermal Utilities across. However, in order to

initiate the activities in this area each organization is desired to:

� Nominate a Chief Information Security Officer for the Organization

(CISO).

� To create an incident response Team identifying Nodal Officers to

handle Cyber Security incidents at each Entity/Plan Levels.


� To draw IT security Policy and Framework for the respective

organization.

� To get vulnerability assessment audit exercise (from Cert-in

empanelled auditors, Ministry of Communication & IT) to further

implement information Security Management System (ISMS) in line

with ISO 27001 Information Security Standards.

� To define Contingency Plan w.r.t. Business Continuity in order to

counteract interruptions.

� To establish Disaster Recovery Plan.

31.1.3 The Constituents noted the above for compliance.

31.2 Black Start Procedure

Mock drill on Black Start Procedure is being followed up in the OCC Meetings.

32. OVERLOADING OF ICTs AT THIRUNELVELI & MADURAI SUBSTATIONS DURING

WIND GENERATION SEASON

32.1 PGCIL had proposed to augment the transformation capacity by 1 x 500 MVA,

400/230 kV transformers at both Thirunelveli & Madurai substations.

32.2 In the 22nd


� TCC had recommended installation of SPS for Thirunelveli & Madurai

ICTs.

� TANTRANSCO had informed that it was not allowing any corridor

congestion in the system. In case of any overloading of ICTs, it would

back down the wind generation. Works on development of separate

evacuation lines for wind generation was being taken up. Last year

wind injection had gone upto 4200 MW & 85 MU/day, but TN had

restricted wind injection upto corridor availability.

� TNEB would also study the augmentation proposal of additional ICT by

PGCIL.

32.3 As mentioned earlier, a Meeting was held at KKNPP on 22nd

July 2013 to review

the preparedness for synchronizing Unit-I (1000 MW) of KKNPP. The action plan

was finalized for implementation.

32.4 In the 87th

Meeting of OCC, PGCIL had informed that their scope of works had

been completed in respect of SPS at 400 KV Thirunelveli & Madurai S/S.

TANTRANSCO had been requested to complete their scope of work at the

earliest.


32.5 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC Meeting ,TANTRANSCO had

informed that the SPS at Thirunelveli had been completed while SPS at Madurai

would be completed by November 2013.

33. DISBURSEMENT OF AVAILABLE PSDF

TANTRANSCO vide letter dated 25th

September 2013 (refer Annexure-XIV) has

stated that works relating to Protection, Renovation & Upgradation of GSES and

Reactive power control be funded through the PSDF for 100%. Balance amount, if

any, could be disbursed to the constituents.

34. PROGRESS OF VARIOUS TRANSMISSION WORKS & GENERATING CAPACITY

WORKS

The progress of transmission & generating capacity works is furnished at Annexure-

XXXVII.

35. SINGLE PHASE AUTO RECLOSE SCHEME FOR LINE EMANATING FROM NUCLEAR

STATIONS


October 2013 (Annexure-XXXVIII) had proposed the

item for discussion in the meeting. It was stated that NPCIL may be advised to

keep single phase Auto-Reclosure Scheme functional in respect of all the lines

emanating from generating stations of NPCIL.


TCC Meeting and NPCIL had agreed “in principle” for implementation of the single

phase auto reclose scheme in SR. Single phase auto reclose had been

implemented on RAPP 5 & 6. After gaining confidence, the same would

subsequently be also implemented in lines from Kaiga. RAPS 5 & 6 and Kaiga had

Russian generators and there were instances of failure. Hence, NPCIL wanted to

have a considered view in this regard. Concurrence for the single phase reclose

scheme for KKNPP had been obtained. After the stabilization of the KKNPP unit,

the matter would be reviewed.

35.3 Chief Engineer, NPCIL stated that they would like to gain some confidence in the

Northern region, before implementing the same in Kaiga.


36. INSTALLATION OF OPGW ON LINES APPROVED IN THE 36TH STANDING

COMMITTEE


October 2013 (refer Annexure-XXXVIII) had put up

the item for information. It was stated that to provide Fiber Connectivity to these

substations (i.e. 765/400 kV Maheswaram and 765/400 kV Nizamabad) with

SRLDC, OPGW on the following transmission lines is to be provided:

i) 400 kV Nizamabad – Dichpallu Line

ii) 765 kV Hyderabad (Maheswaram) – Nizamabad line

iii) 400 kV Hyderabad - Maheswaram – Kurnool line

36.2 In the TCC Meeting, on a query by APTRANSCO with regard to cost sharing, PGCIL

had informed that tariff petition would be filed before Hon’ble CERC.

36.3 TCC had recommended the same for SRPC approval.

36.4 SRPC approved the recommendations of TCC in this regard.

37. SHUT DOWN PLAN FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UNDER CONSTRUCTION


October 2013 (refer Annexure-XXXVIII) had proposed

the item for deliberation in the meeting. It was stated that the procedure for

allowing shutdown for construction activities needs to be reviewed at RPC forum.

37.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c informed that in the TCC Meeting the following had been

noted:

� PGCIL had stated that there were lot of uncertainties in construction

outages and advance planning of two months was rather difficult. There

were severe RoW problems which were required to be attended at very

short notices. PGCIL wanted to plan the construction activities well in

advance through the OCC forum. However, there were many

constraints beyond the control of PGCIL such as law and order issues,

weather issues, non-receipt of material in time etc. These constraints

were needed to be appreciated.

� SRLDC had stated that any outage for construction related activities also

had a bearing on other regular planned outages. PGCIL should make

endeavor to adhere to the procedures circulated by NLDC. At times, the

outage had also a bearing on approved transactions through STOA etc.


� After deliberations, it had been agreed that details of all shutdowns

relating to construction would be furnished as per procedure of NLDC.

However, the same would be reviewed in the OCC Meetings and

changes, if any, accommodated to the extent possible.


38. SHUTDOWN OF HVDC TALCHER-KOLAR LINK


October 2013 (refer Annexure-XXXVIII) had

requested approval shut down of HVDC Talcher-Kolar Link from 10.01.2014 to

13.01.2014 as per the schedule furnished. Looking into importance of

maintenance works and replacement of damaged tower for safe operation of

HVDC system, SRPC could concur the shutdown proposal.

38.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC informed that in the TCC meeting the following had

been noted:

� SRLDC had stated that from January onwards loads pickup generally.

In 22nd

SRPC meeting it was decided to complete the Inter- Regional

link shut downs during June to December each year. In case

shutdown is availed during January 2014, there would be curtailment

of STOA transactions .Constituents would also be required to carry

out additional load shedding and face curtailment of STOA.

� PGCIL had expressed constraints in carrying out the maintenance

during monsoon time and also when the crops were standing.

Massive deployment of work force was also required to carry out this

work.

� After deliberation, as a special case, TCC had recommended shut

down of the link from 10th

of January 2013 for SRPC approval.

38.3 Chairman, TANTRANSCO stated that major Inter-Regional elements & Generating

units should not be taken out in the height of summer. Maintenance of these

elements should be completed before December each year.

38.4 Director (Opn.), PGCIL informed that massive deployment of around 1,000 people

was required for the works. Siemens experts who are required to be present

would not available till the first week of January 2014. These works were thus

being taken up in the early half of January and were of absolute essential nature.


38.5 After deliberations, as a special case, SRPC approved the shutdown of the HVDC

Talcher – Kolar link from 10th

January 2014.

39. BALANCE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF RENOVATION OF SRPC OFFICE PREMISES

39.1 PGCIL vide letter dated 11th September 2013 (Annexure-XXXIX) had requested to

arrange for releasing the balance payment of `1,85,135/- to PGCIL immediately

so that the reconciliation & MoU closing could be done at their end.

39.2 In the Meeting, MS I/c, SRPC said that some amount was due to PGCIL on account

of the renovation works of SRPC Secretariat Office building. The balance payment

would be only around `7,000/- per Member. TCC had recommended the balance

payment for approval of SRPC.

39.3 SRPC approved the balance payment of `1,85,135/- to PGCIL for reimbursement

by the Members.

40. 132 kV KAKINADA – YANAM LINE

In the TCC Meeting, APTRANSCO had informed that Kakinada – Yanam line was

LILOed at Pratap Nagar and Pratap Nagar substation is ready for charging. PGCIL

was requested to shift the SEMs available at Kakinada to Pratap Nagar. PGCIL had

informed that this issue would be mutually discussed and settled.

41. VARIABLE CHARGES OF RSTPS STAGE-III

In the TCC Meeting, Chief Engineer (SO) KSEB had informed that the variable

charges for RSTPS Stage-III were much higher during the month of September 2013

as compared to previous months. She had suggested that NTPC may examine this

matter. TANTRANSCO had informed that the rate for September 2013 was `4.89

per unit as against `2.44 per unit for the month of August 2013. NTPC had informed

that it appeared there could be some computation error. NTPC would examine and

revert back on this matter.


SRPC noted the following:

42. METHODOLOGY FOR ACCOUNTING INJECTION BY KUDANKULAM NPP

A Meeting was held on 5th

August 2013 at SRPC Bangalore to finalize the accounting

methodology of Kudankulam NPP injection to the grid. The Record Notes of the

discussions of the meeting is at Annexure-XL.

43. METERING SCHEME AND ACCOUNTING METHODOLGY

In the 22nd

Meeting of Commercial Sub-Committee of SRPC held on 31st

July 2013,

after deliberations, it was agreed that henceforth Generating Stations & Sub

Stations, Transmission Licensees or any agency getting connected under

Connectivity, LTA/MTOA Regulations or any other scheme shall approach

Commercial Sub-Committee well in advance and get the metering scheme and

accounting methodology finalized in the Commercial Sub-Committee forum.

44. HOLDING OF PROTECTION SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH

44.1 In the Special Meeting of TCC, it had been decided that PGCIL, KPTCL, SRLDC and

SRPC Secretariat would participate in the fortnightly Protection Sub- Committee

Meetings. Deliberations would then be put up to regular Protection Sub-

Committee which would be held once a month.

44.2 In the Second Meeting of NPC, considering the difficulties expressed by the RPCs,

Chairperson, CEA & NPC had accepted the request for holding the Protection Sub-

Committee Meetings on a monthly basis during current summer session.

However, he directed them to ensure that when ever there is an instance of

multiple critical transmission / generation elements in the grid, it should be got

investigated and analyzed on immediate basis and remedial action should also be

taken in a time bound manner under intimation to NPC Secretariat / GM Division

of CEA.


44.3 CEO, POSOCO vide letter dated 29th

May 2013 had observed issues regarding

analysis of multiple element outages in the Regional Grid and follow up action

(Annexure-XLI).

45. ENERGY GENERATION DATA MANAGEMENT FROM RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES

45.1 Energy generation from RES connected to Grid is being collected by CEA from

SLDCs from April 2012 onwards. It has been decided that CEA would bring out a

monthly report of RES containing data of generation in MU from RES Month-wise,

State-wise, Sector-wise & Category-wise etc including details like peak generation

from RES, time occurrence etc. In this regard, CEA had already requested to

nominate Nodal Officers for the above purpose. A Meeting was held on 31st

May

2013 with Nodal Officers to discuss this issue at CEA, New Delhi. A follow-up

meeting had been held on 31st

August 2013 at SRPC, Bangalore.

45.2 It had been requested that process of furnishing the requisite information to CEA

may kindly be streamlined.

46. COOPERATION DURING AP AGITATION & CYCLONE

46.1 ED, SRLDC placed on record the excellent cooperation rendered by the

constituents during the recent cyclone and agitation in AP.

46.2 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO said that APSLDC & SRLDC had

coordinated well during this period of crisis. He hoped that similar spirit of

cooperation would continue in the future too for safe and secure operation of the

SR Grid.

47. DATE & VENUE OF THE NEXT SRPC MEETING

It was decided to hold the 24th

Meeting of SRPC during February 2014. NPCIL kindly

consented to host the meeting.


48. VOTE OF THANKS

48.1 Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO thanked all the Members for making the

23rd

Meeting of SRPC a success.

48.2 MS I/c, SRPC thanked Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO for kindly chairing

the Meeting. He again thanked Chairman, KSEB for the excellent arrangements for

conduct of the Meeting.

Sd/- Sd/-

(S.R. BHAT) CPES (SURESH CHANDA) IAS

Member Secretary I/c, SRPC Chairperson, SRPC & CMD, APTRANSCO

***

contentsthe list of participants is furnished at annexure-i. 1.2 shri m. sivasankar, chairman kseb...

Documents