MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 1 of 16

Before the

MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

World Trade Centre, Centre No.1, 13th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400005

Tel. 022 22163964/65/69 Fax 22163976

E-mail: mercindia@merc.gov.in

Website: www.mercindia.org.in / www. merc.gov.in

Case No. 88 of 2016

In the matter of

Petition of Tata Motors Ltd. regarding non-compliance of Distribution Open Access

Regulations, 2005 and 2014 and Commission’s Order dated 3.1.2013 in Case Nos. 8, 18,

20 and 33 of 2012 by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Coram

Shri Azeez M. Khan, Member

Shri Deepak Lad, Member

Tata Motors Ltd. ……Petitioner

V/s.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ……Respondent

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Smt. Dipali Sheth (Adv)

For the Respondent : Shri. Ashish Singh (Adv)

Shri. A.V. Bute

ORDER

Dated: 18 December, 2017

M/s Tata Motors Ltd. (TML), Pimpri, Pune has filed a Petition on 24 June, 2016, citing

Sections 42, 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act (EA), 2003 and the MERC (Distribution Open

Access) Regulations (‘DOA Regulations’), 2005 and 2014, regarding non-compliance by

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 2 of 16

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) of the DOA Regulations and

the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case Nos.8, 18, 20 and 33 of 2012.

2. TML’s prayers are as follows:

(a) “This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to forthwith grant Open

Access renewal to the Petitioners for the months from April 2015-October 2015 as per

the application dated November 15, 2014;

(b) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to not withhold open

access permissions in future in unjustified and arbitrary manner;

(c) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct the Respondent to issue the credit notes

to the Petitioner for energy injected till date and continue to issue the same in timely

manner;

(d) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to direct Respondent to forthwith issue REC

pro-forma and energy injection report based on joint meter reading;

(e) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to order and direct Respondent to compensate

the Petitioner for RECs lapsed on account of unjustly withholding the grant of Open

Access renewals in F.Y.2015-16;

(f) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to order and direct Respondent to direct

Respondent to refund the processing fees wrongly collected thrice from the Petitioner

instead of collecting one time;

(g) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to refer the matter to the Hon’ble High Court

for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents’ directors and officers;

(h) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to order Interim and Ad-interim reliefs in terms

of prayers (a) to (d) above;

(i) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to award cost for these proceedings against

Respondent and in favour of the Petitioner.

(j) This Hon’ble Commission be pleased to pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble

Commission may deem just in the present case.”

3. The Petition states as follows:

(1) TML is engaged in manufacturing and sale of automotive vehicles, components and

parts. It has its manufacturing facility at Pimpri, Pune. TML is a consumer of

MSEDCL, with a contracted capacity of 55372 kVA and connected load of 194000

kW.

(2) TML is also operating wind-based generating units in Maharashtra, with a total

installed capacity of 21.95 MW. TML is a captive Open Access (OA) consumer of

this wind farm since 2008.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 3 of 16

(3) The Central Electricity Authority (CEA) (Installation and Operation of Meters)

Regulations, 2006 (‘CEA Metering Regulations’) deals with meters installed and to be

installed by Generating Companies and Licensees engaged in generation,

transmission, trading, distribution and supply of electricity to all categories of

consumers.

(4) On 9 February, 2010, a joint meeting was held between TML, MSEDCL and

Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (MSETCL) for carrying out the

installation of Apex Metering to upgrade the metering of TML. This conversion

included replacement of healthy 0.2 Class 220 kV Current Transformers (CTs),

modification of support structure of CTs, and earthing and jumpering arrangements.

Specifications of Apex Meter and CTs were selected and directed by MSEDCL. It

was also decided that TML will arrange for 2 core 4 sq.mm. multi-strand copper

cables for 9 CTs from each CT secondary terminal box to the meter room. Further, the

Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL, Pune would test the commissioning

of the new 220 KV CTs with the Summation Meter (Apex Meter). Al the work would

be planned after confirmation by TML of its cable arrangement, and done in 2-3 days.

(5) In pursuance of the above, MSEDCL selected and arranged new 0.2 class CTs and

0.2s class Special Energy Meter (SEM). The works were completed by MSEDCL.

Thereafter, on 4 May, 2011, MSEDCL filed Form NC-1 for connection checking of

HT consumers. MSEDCL also filed a replacement report of TML’s SEM at Pimpri.

Both the manufacturer and supplier of the Apex Meter have confirmed that the Apex

Meter had Availability-based Tariff (ABT) features.

(6) Thereafter, vide itsOrder dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No.8, 18, 20 and 33 of 2012,

the Commission gave 6 months to MSEDCL to develop a pilot case for installation of

SEM at both the generation and consumption ends and submit its findings to the

Commission.

(7) Vide letter dated 12 February, 2013, TML sought OA permission for 7.35 MW

(Developer 4057) and 1 MW (Developer 1005) power for self-use of wind energy

from MSEDCL at its Pimpri Plant. On 3 April, 2013, MSEDCL granted OA

permissions to TML for self-use for FY 2013-14 Developers 4057 and 1005.

(8) Again, vide its letter dated 22 February, 2013, TML sought OA permission for 5.25

MW (Developer 4067), 7.35 MW (Developer 4028) and 1 MW (Developer 1002) for

self-use of wind energy at its Pimpri Plant. Thus, a total of 21.95 MW was applied for

OA by TML considering its applications dated 12 and 22 February, 2013. On 3 April,

2013, granted OA permission to TML for self-use for the entire period of FY 2013-

14.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 4 of 16

(9) Pursuant to the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 in Case No. 8, 18, 20 and

33 of 2012, MSEDCL issued a Commercial Circular No. 194 dated 9 April, 2013

which contained the procedure for OA for renewable energy (RE) sources. The

Circular also provided for installation of SEM by OA consumers not later than 3 July,

2013 (within 6 months of the Order).

(10) Vide its letter dated May 24, 2013, MSEDCL also called upon TML, being an OA

consumer, to install SEM as per Circular 194 by 3 July, 2013, and that the cost of

installation will have to be borne by TML.

(11) Vide letter dated 4 June, 2013, TML replied that SEM has been installed with the

specification of 15 minute time block, data storage and online communication, as per

the SEM metering system requirement in accordance with the DOA Regulations,

2005. The SEM was installed by MSEDCL in 2011 keeping in mind the relevant

provisions of those Regulations.

(12) TML sought OA permissions for FY 2014-15 vide its applications dated 3 February,

2014, as follows:

Sr.No. Application date Developer No. Capacity Period

1. February 3, 2014 4067 5.25 MW FY 2014-15

2. February 3, 2014 4057 7.35 MW FY 2014-15

3. February 3, 2014 4028 7.35 MW FY 2014-15

4. February 3, 2014 1002 1 MW FY 2014-15

5. February 3, 2014 1005 1MW FY 2014-15

(13) On 30 April, 2014, MSEDCL granted OA permission for 7.35 MW power for self-use

as sought by TML.

(14) Further, vide letter dated 7 July, 2014, MSEDCL’s Ganeshkhind (Pune) Office wrote

internally to Superintending Engineer (SE), Testing and Quality Assurance (TQA),

Rastapeth (Pune) Office that the SEM connected to the billing meter of TML has a

Maximum Demand integration of 30 minutes, whereas the requirement was to install

the SEM at the injection and withdrawal points with active energy recording at every

15 minutes. Vide letter dated 16 October, 2014, SE (Testing Division), MSEDCL

stated that the metering arrangement is not compatible with the SEM installed by

TML, and that the Load Survey data in the meter is of 30 minutes and the Maximum

Demand integration is also of 30 minutes. However, this internal correspondence

conveying the installation of incorrect SEM was made available to TML only vide

MSEDCL’s letter dated 29 January, 2015.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 5 of 16

(15) Thereafter, vide letter dated 15 November, 2014, TML applied for renewal of OA

permission for FY 2015-16 for sourcing power from its five wind farms.

(16) On 9 December, 2014, TML received the bill for its Pimpri Plant for the month of

November, 2014. MSEDCL levied certain charges and had not credited the wind

power injected to the extent of 1,33,257 units. Vide letter dated 12 December, 2014,

TML raised two issues, of which one was the absence of credits for 1,33,257 units of

its Supa Wind Project in November, 2014. TML requested that this be adjusted in its

bill of December, 2014. However, MSEDCL did not give credit for the wind power

injected by TML despite valid OA permission, nor has it provided any explanation.

(17) In its bill for the month of December, 2014 also, no credit was given for the wind

power generated in the months of October and November, 2014 to the extent of

22,04,298 units. Therefore, TML again vide letter dated 10 January, 2015 asked

MSEDCL to give adjustments for this injected wind power.

(18) Vide its letter dated 21 January, 2015, MSEDCL stated that TML’s Application for

Medium/Long Term OA for self-use made on 15 November, 2014 had certain

discrepancies, which TML was requested to comply with.

(19) On 29 January, 2015, TML received a copy of an internal communication between

MSEDCL Officers pertaining to the SEM. The letter refers to correspondence since

July, 2014 regarding the metering of TML. It stated that Load Survey data in the

meter and the Maximum Demand integration period is of 30 minutes, and that the

accuracy of CTs should be 0.2S instead of the existing 0.2. It also stated that the

Check Meter is provided on the incoming line with a CT ratio of 1200/1A; and that

the MSEDCL Head Office had earlier sanctioned OA permission for FY 2014-15, but

TML has not fulfilled the metering criteria. The letter seeks guidance of the Head

Office on how to deal with the existing OA permission and on the benefits earlier

provided to TML pursuant to it. TML was neither kept in the loop nor informed of the

reasons for not furnishing credit of wind power injected till 29 January, 2015.

Assuming but not admitting that there was a deficiency in the metering, it was the

duty of MSEDCL to communicate it to TML rather than unilaterally not providing

credit. MSEDCL did not do so for 5 months even though it had known of it since

July, 2014. Had TML been informed earlier, it would have taken steps to comply even

with the unreasonable demands of MSEDCL. In fact, it is only at the instance of

MSEDCL that TML had incurred costs for replacement of healthy CTs as well as

installation of SEMs.

(20) Vide letter dated 9 February, 2015, TML replied to this letter and clarified the facts

regarding the existing SEM. The metering system was upgraded in 2010 by MSEDCL

and TML had paid the cost. At the instance of MSEDCL, the existing CTs, which

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 6 of 16

were healthy, were replaced with new CTs of 0.2 class. The Commission had only

asked for installation of SEM and not for replacement of healthy CTs and Potential

Transformers (PTs) as the CEA Metering Regulations, 2006 do not require

replacement of healthy CTs and PTs. The installation requirements of the consumer

meter is under the control of MSEDCL with reference to the CEA Metering

Regulations. TML also communicated that there is no requirement of Check Meter

under the DOA Regulations, 2005 or Circular 194 or the Order of the Commission.

(21) Thereafter, inspection was conducted by MSEDCL on 6 February, 2015 for

evaluating the metering at TML’s premises following which, vide letter dated 16

February, 2015, its field officials requested its Testing Department to approve a few

changes suggested. The letter states that the existing Summation Meter installed on 18

July, 2011 had HT Time of the Day (ToD) Meter parameters with 30 minutes Load

Survey and Demand integration period with 0.2S class accuracy.

(22) Vide its letter dated 19 February, 2015, TML stated and requested as follows:

a. reprogramming of the SEM from 30 to 15 minute time block should be done

without stopping the wind power credits, at TML’s cost;

b. the Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013 and CEA Metering Regulations,

2006 do not require the replacement of existing healthy CTs and PTs.

TML also sought waiver of installation of Check Meter due to the space constraints

which were observed at the time of inspection, and stated that it is not mandatory as

per the DOA Regulations, 2005 or the Commission’s Order dated January 3, 2013.

(23) Vide letter dated 20 February, 2015, TML again requested early reinstatement of its

wind power credits withheld since November, 2014. It also sought approval of OA

permission for at least 6 months to enable TML to take corrective action as per letter

dated February 19, 2015.

(24) Vide letter dated 20 March, 2015, TML stated to MSEDCL that the requirement of

submitting OA applications 5 months before is not mandatory for an existing OA

consumer, such as TML, availing OA from MSEDCL for 7 years without a gap since

2008. TML also requested OA permission for 3 years from April, 2015 to March,

2018 for the full term of Medium Term OA (MTOA). TML has installed SEM prior

to 3 July, 2013 [within the 6 months stipulated in the Commission’s Order] and has

hence complied with the applicable laws. The reprogramming, if required, needs to be

carried out by MSEDCL and the costs will be borne by TML. TML also submitted

that, although the existing CT and PTs are healthy and were replaced earlier by

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 7 of 16

MSEDCL in 2011, if MSEDCL still insists TML agrees to bear the costs for

replacement of CTs and MSEDCL should undertake the replacement.

(25) Vide letter dated 14 May, 2015, MSEDCL reiterated the requirement of

reprogramming of existing SEM (Summation Meter) be done for 15 minutes Load

Survey data and replacement of 0.2 class CTs at TML’s cost. It waived the

requirement of installation of additional Check Metering with independent CTs and

PTs but directed installation of Apex Meter of the same specification as the main

meter as a Check Meter with the same CTs and PTs at the cost of TML.

(26) On 2 June, 2015, TML received a copy of another internal communication between

the officers of MSEDCL pertaining to the SEM for OA permission, dated 21 May,

2015. It stated that approval from the Testing Department for installation of SEM has

been granted, but requested the Testing Department to provide charges and

arrangements for reprogramming of the existing summator for 15 minutes Load

Survey data with ABT features.

(27) In the response dated 26 May, 2015, it was informed that approval was accorded for

replacement of CTs and reprogramming of SEM, and the specification of the Check

Meter and CTs was provided.

(28) Vide letter dated 17 June, 2015, MSEDCL provided an estimate to TML for

installation of Apex Meters as per the terms and conditions. Vide two further letters,

both dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL informed TML that its pending credit

adjustment from 1 November, 2014 to 31 March, 2015 has been released. However,

renewal of OA permission for FY 2015-16 with the existing energy meter of 30

minutes time block was declined.

(29) Vide its letter dated 6 August, 2015 to SE (TQA Circle), Pune Division, TML

requested factory inspection at Secure Meters Ltd., and vide letter dated 18 August,

2015 requested expeditious renewal of OA permission for FY 2015-16.

(30) On 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it has procured Secure make

SEM with ABT features and 9 new 0.2S class CTs. It also stated that testing of this

meter at the lab of MSEDCL has been completed and the new SEM is ready for

installation. TML requested installation of this SEM at the site.

(31) Thereafter, on 30 October, 2015, TML applied for renewal of MTOA from FY 2016-

17 to FY 2018-19 for 100% captive consumption along with processing fees.

However, vide e-mail dated 4 November, 2015, MSEDCL rejected the applications

stating that the SEM was not installed at the drawal point and that all the requirements

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 8 of 16

for installation had not been complied with, and hence the applications were rejected.

TML has now received Short Term Open Access (STOA) permissions for April and

May, 2016 and is awaiting MTOA permissions for the period from 1 June, 2016 till

31 March, 2019.

(32) Vide letter dated 6 November, 2015, TML confirmed that the existing Summation

Meter (SEM) at the 220 KV switchyard of the Pimpri, Pune plant is removed and

replaced by a new 3-feeder SEM as per the approved specifications. TML also

requested to MSEDCL to send the old SEM summation type ABT meter for

reprogramming.

(33) Thereafter, a meeting was held on 7 November, 2015 between MSEDCL (Testing

Division) and TML recording the replacement of Secure make Apex Meter (SEM) at

the 220 KV Switchyard.

(34) Vide letter dated 9 November, 2015, TML again requested MSEDCL to issue the

renewed OA permissions for 100% captive use of wind generation for FY 2015-16

(w.e.f. 1 April, 2015) and submitted the confirmatory evidence of installation of new

SEM, and to send the old SEM to the Testing Division for reprogramming.

(35) However, inspite of this, MSEDCL vide letter dated 19 November, 2015 rejected

TML’s application for MTOA from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19 for self-use and

purchase of wind energy from third party on the grounds that sourcing of power from

multiple sources is not permissible under the DOA Regulations, 2014, and that SEM

with required specifications is not yet installed at the drawal point. MSEDCL further

requested TML to apply afresh and choose MTOA for utilizing the wind power

generation.

(36) On the same day, i.e. 19 November, 2015, MSEDCL officials wrote to its Testing

Department requesting inspection of Secure make Apex summation type Meter (the

old SEM) of TML after its reprogramming for ABT features at the manufacturer’s

works. The testing may be carried out as per the procedure at the manufacturer’s

works and ensure that the meter is AMR compatible. Vide letter dated 21 November,

2015, they requested the Testing Department to be present for inspecting/testing of

Mehru make 220 kV metering CTs at its factory at Bhiwadi in Rajasthan, and that the

inspection may be jointly carried out with MSETCL.

(37) Vide e-mail dated 19 November, 2015, TML stated that, as sought by MSEDCL, it

had submitted all the additional documents on 20 March, 2015 for issue of OA

permission for 100% captive use of wind power in FY 2015-16. TML again requested

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 9 of 16

MSEDCL to issue OA permission to it for 100% Captive use of wind power for self-

use for FY 2015-16 with effect from 1 April, 2015.

(38) Vide letter dated 8 December, 2015, TML sought OA permission for 100% captive

use of wind power also from FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19. TML stated that it had been

following up continuously with MSEDCL for OA permissions and that all the

requirements have been complied with.

(39) Thereafter, vide letter dated 17 December, 2015, TML re-submitted fresh applications

for MTOA permission for self-use, i.e. 100% captive consumption. MSEDCL has not

replied, and later responded verbally on 15 March, 2016 directing TML to re-submit

one-time processing fee to enable it to grant MTOA from 1 June, 2016, i.e. 5 months

after the re-submission of applications. MSEDCL also directed TML to submit STOA

applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 by paying one time processing fees.

(40) In its e-mail dated 9 March, 2015, MSEDCL had taken cognizance of the fact that the

applications as per the DOA Regulations, 2014 for the first financial year could not be

made in the specified time frame for FY 2015-16.

4. In its Reply dated 15 November, 2016, MSEDCL has stated that:

(1) The present Petition was filed by TML on 22 June, 2016 for an alleged disputed

period of April to November, 2015 without any explanation on the issue of delay.

(2) The Supreme Court, in its Judgment dated 22 February, 1999 in Civil Appeal No.

3562 of 1998 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Versus Time Pharma) has

held that there was a delay of 360 days in preferring the appeal without any

explanation and, therefore, dismissed the Appeal dismissed as barred by time. In its

Judgment dated 14 February, 2000 in Review Petition (c) No. 91 of 2000 in Civil

Appeal (c) No. 7717 of 1997 (Union of India and Others Versus Mohd. Nayyar Khalil

and Others) had categorically held that 690 days delay in the absence of satisfactory

explanation rendered the Petition liable to be dismissed

(3) The period of alleged denial of OA for captive use being for the period April, 2015 to

November, 2015, it is governed by the DOA Regulations, 2014.

(4) SEM Meters which are a pre-requisite for grant of OA have to be installed by the

consumer.

(5) Vide letter dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL told TML that the OA permission for FY-

2015-16 with the existing SEM meter with 30 minute time slot-wise energy data

cannot be considered as it was not in line with the DOA Regulations, 2014.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 10 of 16

(6) Thereafter, vide e-mail dated 4 November, 2015 MSEDCL again informed TML that

the OA permissions cannot be granted as the metering arrangement was not in line

with the DOA Regulations, 2014.

(7) Vide its Order dated 6 April, 2016 in Case No. 129 of 2014, the Commission has held

that every Connector shall install or have installed a correct meter in accordance with

the Regulations made by CEA under Section 55 of the EA, 2003.

(8) TML was very well aware about the requirement of installation of SEM Meter which

is in line with the DOA Regulations, 2014. This was made known to TML vide letters

issued by MSEDCL. TML cannot now seek retrospective adjustment for its own

default. Injection of energy into the grid by TML is without any consent or permission

by MSEDCL. If TML has chosen to still inject energy into the grid, it has done so at

its own risk and cost for which it is solely liable.

5. At the hearing held on 17 November, 2016, TML and MSEDCL reiterated their

respective submissions.

(1) TML stated that

(i) TML is a Captive OA Consumer since 2008. On 15 November, 2014, TML

submitted applications for renewal of OA permissions for the period from

April, 2015 to March, 2016.

(ii) On 29 January, 2015, TML received an internal communication between the

officers of MSEDCL in which it was stated that Load Survey data and

Maximum Demand integration period were of 30 minutes.

(iii) Vide its letter dated 9 February, 2015, TML wrote to MSEDCL stating that

the existing SEMs are in accordance with the DOA Regulations, 2005 and

MSEDCL Circular No. 194, and that the SEMs have the option for

reconfiguration to 15 minute time blocks. TML requested MSEDCL to

accordingly reinstate the adjustment of wind energy credits in its monthly

energy bills.

(iv) Vide letter dated 19 February, 2015, TML requested that reprogramming of

the SEM from 30 minute time block to 15 minute time block should be done

without stopping the wind power credits, and undertook to pay the charges.

(v) Vide letter dated 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it has

procured ‘Secure’ make SEM with ABT features and 9 new 0.2S class CTs,

and that testing of this meter at the lab of MSEDCL has been completed and

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 11 of 16

the new SEM is ready for installation. Therefore, TML requested arrangement

of installation of this SEM at the site.

(vi) On 30 October, 2015, TML applied for renewal of MTOA from FY 2016-17

to FY 2018-19 for 100% captive consumption. However, vide e-mail dated 4

November, 2015, MSEDCL rejected the applications stating that SEM was

not installed at the drawal point and all the requirements necessary for

installation have not been complied with.

(vii) Vide its letter dated 6 November , 2015, TML confirmed that the existing

Summation Meter (SEM) at the 220 KV switchyard of its Pimpri, Pune Plant

is removed and replaced by a new 3-feeder Summation Meter as per the

approved specifications. TML also requested MSEDCL to send the old SEM

for reprogramming.

(2) MSEDCL stated that:

(i) The Petition was filed on 22 June, 2016, for an alleged disputed period of

April, 2015 to November, 2015, without explanation for the delay and laches.

(ii) Vide letter dated 4 August, 2015, MSEDCL had, though belatedly,

communicated to TML that the OA permission for FY 2015-16 with the

existing SEM with 30 minute time slot cannot be considered as it is not in line

with the DOA Regulations, 2014. TML was very well aware about the

requirement of installation of SEM in line with the DOA Regulations, 2014.

6. In its Rejoinder dated 18 November, 2016, TML stated that:

(1) The Petition is filed within a period of 3 years. There is no prescribed limitation

period in the EA, 2003. Therefore, the general statute of limitation shall apply, which

is the Limitation Act, 1963. Part X of the Limitation Act stipulates that the period for

filing a suit/petition is 3 years from when the right to sue accrues. TML’s right to

claim/sue arose in August, 2015 when MSEDCL denied OA, and the Petition is filed

within 3 years, i.e. on June 24, 2016, Hence, it is not barred by the Limitation Act.

(2) The main reason why TML approached the Commission only in June, 2016 was that it

was trying to resolve the issue amicably and on good terms with MSEDCL. The series

of correspondence between TML and MSEDCL annexed to the Petition substantiates

that TML was continuously following up with MSEDCL.

(3) SEM was required to be installed as per the DOA Regulations, 2005 read with the

Commission’s Order dated 3 January, 2013. TML pro-actively took steps and had got

the SEM installed in 2011. TML had provided the complete sequence of steps taken

by it to comply with that Order of the Commission. TML also once again

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 12 of 16

communicated this fact to MSEDCL vide its letter dated June 04, 2013, stating that

the SEM had been installed.

(4) MSEDCL is cherry picking in replying to the Petition. The Petition details the entire

correspondence between TML and MSEDCL pertaining to the OA applications as

well as the SEM. Although there was some internal correspondence on the 30 minute

recording between MSEDCL’s offices, it was communicated to TML only on 29

January, 2015. Despite TML’s request on 9 February, 2015 to re-programme/

recalibrate the SEM, MSEDCL failed to do so. The SEM was installed way back in

2011. However, re-programming/ recalibration was required to be done by MSEDCL.

at the cost of TML to which it had agreed.

(5) The e-mail dated 4 November, 2015 pertains to MTOA from FY 2016-17 to 2018-19

whereas the present Petition deals with wrongful denial of OA for the months of April

to November, 2015.

(6) The wind power Plants of TML are on ‘must run’ basis and hence cannot be backed

down. MSEDCL seems to have misunderstood the facts as TML is not seeking

retrospective adjustment due to its default. Rather, this is a classic case of abuse of

monopoly position by MSEDCL. TML is among the few companies which took

proactive steps to install SEM before the deadline of 3 July, 2013 as per the Order of

the Commission. It is evident that TML had a SEM as it was granted OA permissions

for FY 2013-14 as well as FY 2014-15 by MSEDCL. Despite installing the SEM,

MSEDCL withheld OA permission for its own fault of not checking the meter in a

timely manner and re-programming/ recalibrating it as required. The Commission’s

directive was only to install SEM and not to replace CTs and PTs, which MSEDCL

called upon TML to do.

Commission’s Analysis and Ruling:

7. TML is an EHV-connected consumer of MSEDCL, which is generating wind

energy at different sites with a total installed capacity of 21.95 MW. TML is a

Captive OA Consumer since 2008. This Case centres around the SEM at TML’s

premises not being in accordance with the specifications for enabling OA, which

resulted in OA not being granted for the 7 months of April to October, 2015.

8. The chronology of events and most relevant correspondence between TML and

MSEDCL are set out below:

(i) The Minutes of the meeting held on 9 February, 2010 between TML,

MSEDCL and MSETCL show that nine 220 kV single core metering CTs of

0.2 Accuracy Class with 200-100-50/ 1 Amp. Ratio were supplied by

MSETCL, and had been tested by the MSEDCL Testing Division, Pune. Its

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 13 of 16

report was submitted to MSETCL vide letter dated 24 December, 2009 for

erection of CTs and arrangement of control cables.

(ii) The Minutes also show that MSEDCL planned to provide a Summation

Meter (Apex Meter) for the three 220 kV feeder arrangement of TML, the

procurement order for which was placed by Chief Engineer, Pune Zone on

28 May, 2009. The factory inspection of the Summation Meter was done by

MSEDCL, and the defects pointed out were to be rectified so as to install the

correct meter for TML.

(iii) The Minutes of the meeting were signed by SE, Testing, Pune, SE, EHV

(O&M), TML’s Senior Manager (CPED), SE, Ganeshkhind (Pune) Urban

Circle (GKUC), the Executive Engineers (Testing), GKUC and Bhosari

Division, and the Executive Engineer, RS Division, Pune (Annexure A of the

Petition).

(iv) The connection with the 0.2 class CT and Apex Meter, etc. was tested by

MSEDCL and report in NC-1 Form (connection checking of HT consumer)

was recorded on 2/4 May, 2011 (Annexure B of the Petition).

From the above, it is clear that the specifications of the CTs were not only

decided by MSETCL, but that these were procured and supplied by it. Further,

the CTs were also tested and commissioned by MSEDCL. With this equipment

configuration at site, TML was granted OA for FY 2013-14 for its multiple

injection sources.

(v) MSEDCL, Pune wrote to TML on 24 May, 2013 to apply for installation of

SEM as per its Circular 194 dated 3 July, 2013, at the cost of TML. TML

replied vide letter dated 4 June, 2013 that SEM of the required

specifications had already been installed.

(vi) The letter dated 7 July, 2014 of SE, GKUC, Pune to SE (TQA), Rastapeth,

Pune (Annexure O of the Petition), referring to the OA permission given by

the MSEDCL Head Office, indicates that the billing meter of TML had

Maximum Demand integration of 30 minutes, instead of the requirement of

SEM at the injection and drawal points with active energy recording at

every 15 minutes, and asks for confirmation of the consumer end SEM and

Check Meter. In his reply dated 16 October, 2014, SE (TQA) stated that the

metering arrangement of TML is not as per the requirements as the Load

Survey data and the Maximum Demand integration of the SEM are both of

30 minutes, as against the 15 minutes configuration required. Differences

with regard to the Accuracy Class of the CTs, etc. were also cited.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 14 of 16

(vii) On 15 November, 2014, TML submitted 5 applications for OA for the entire

period of FY 2015-16 for sourcing power from multiple injection points.

However, vide letter dated 21 January, 2015, MSEDCL pointed out certain

deficiencies to be rectified, including confirmation by MSEDCL’s Testing

Deptt. regarding installation of SEM meters of the required specifications.

(viii) When it was not given wind energy credits for the months of October and

November, 2014 against its continuing OA permission for FY 2014-15, TML

enquired with MSEDCL. It was told that there were issues about the Apex

Meter and the CT Accuracy Class. Hence, on 9 February, 2015, TML wrote

to MSEDCL reiterating that the existing SEMs were in accordance with the

DOA Régulations, 2005 and Circular No. 194; that, accordingly, OA had

earlier been given upto March, 2015 ; that these SEMs can be configured for

15 minute time blocks ; and that they have ABT features. TML also stated

that, in 2010, MSEDCL had itself upgraded TML’s metering system, and the

existing CTs were also selected, tested and installed by MSEDCL at TML’s

cost. TML stated further that there is no requirement of Check Meter under

the DOA Regulations, 2005 and MSEDCL’s Circular No. 194. Considering

these clarifications, TML asked MSEDCL to reinstate the adjustment of

wind energy credits in its monthly energy bills.

(ix) Vide his letter dated 16 February, 2015, SE (GKUC) informed CE (Testing)

(with a copy to TML) that the following changes were required in TML’s

metering arrangement, and sought his approval:

a. The SEM has Load Survey integration period of 30 minutes, which

should be for 15 minutes time slot with ABT features.

b. The CTs are of 220-100-50/1A [this appears to be an inadvertent

error, and should read ‘200-100-50/1A’], 100VA, 0.2 Accuracy Class,

instead of 150/1A single core single ratio, 15VA and 0.2S Accuracy

Class, as required.

c. The existing PTs can be used.

This was approved vide reply dated 14 May, 2015.

(x) On 19 February, TML wrote to CE (Testing) stating that if, inspite of its

clarifications, reprogramming of the SEM and upgrading of the CTs was still

considered necessary, MSEDCL may do so at TML’s cost without stopping

its wind energy credits. TML also wrote several letters to MSEDCL, in this

background, that 6 months would be needed for any new arrangements

required; that, in the meantime, the OA for FY 2014-15 may be continued

till then; and that OA permission may be given for the subsequent period as

applied for.

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 15 of 16

(xi) On 4 August, 2015, well into FY 2015-16, MSEDCL belatedly intimated

TML that, while the pending wind energy credits from November, 2014 to

March, 2015 would be released, OA permission for FY 2015-16 could not be

given with the existing SEM in view of the DOA Regulations, 2014.

(xii) Vide letter dated 20 October, 2015, TML informed MSEDCL that it had

acted upon its instructions and purchased CTs and SEM of the desired

specification with ABT features. Factory inspection had been undertaken

and the SEM tested at the MSEDCL TQA Lab, Pune. TML now sought

installation of the SEM. TML had also placed an order for nine CTs of 0.2S

Accuracy Class, which would be ready for factory inspection and testing

shortly.

(xiii) The Minutes of the subsequent meeting dated 7 November, 2015 between

the MSEDCL Testing Division and TML show that the old SEM Apex Meter

with 30 minute integration time was replaced by a new SEM Apex Meter

with 15 minutes integration time and was tested and commissioned on 5

November, 2015.

9. Being a leading industrial consumer with Contract Demand of 55.37 MVA and

availing OA for a long time, TML ought to have been aware of the process and the

technical and other requirements. Nevertheless, in the Commission’s view, the

sequence of events set out above shows that the entire matter was mishandled by

MSETCL and MSEDCL, quite apart from belated responses by MSEDCL. In 2011,

MSETCL and MSEDCL, respectively, had themselves procured the CTs and the

Apex Meter. The configurations were also verified and the equipment tested and

commissioned by MSEDCL. However, neither of them thought it necessary to

consider the specifications prescribed in the CEA Metering Regulations as

amended from time to time, resulting in the subsequent complications and delays

brought out in these proceedings.

10. Considering these circumstances, the Commission directs MSEDCL to grant OA to

TML for captive use of its wind energy from April to October, 2015, and to issue

the credit notes for the energy injected during this period for adjustment in the

ensuing billing cycle, notwithstanding the fact that the metering configuration at

that time was not in line with the CEA Metering Regulations. The Commission also

notes that MSEDCL had granted OA permission for FY 2013-14 and FY 2014-15

with the earlier metering arrangement, a fact which MSEDCL has avoided

addressing in its submissions.

11. In the background of this Case, the Commission would also like the Managing

Directors of MSEDCL and MSETCL to review their processes at the Head Office

and field levels and the coordination between them in this regard considering their

impact on the consumers with whom it interacts, and apprise the Commission of

MERC Order in Case No. 88 of 2016 Page 16 of 16

the corrective steps taken within 2 months. The Secretariat of the Commission shall

forward a copy of this Order to them.

12. MSEDCL is silent on the issue of collection of OA processing fees thrice, raised by

TML. The Commission notes that:

(1) Vide letter dated 30 October, 2015, TML applied for MTOA for 3 years from

FY 2016-17 to FY 2018-19, but including from sources apart from its own wind

energy generation. This was rejected by MSEDCL on 19 November, 2015 on

the ground that sourcing power from multiple Generators was not permissible

under the DOA Regulations, 2014.

(2) Vide letter dated 17 December, 2015, TML re-submitted its MTOA applications

for these 3 years for sourcing power from its own wind farms, as advised by

MSEDCL.

(3) On 15 March, 2016, MSEDCL asked TML to re-submit the one-time processing

fees for MTOA from June, 2016 to March, 2019. MSEDCL also directed it to

submit applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 by paying one-time

processing fees.

(4) Accordingly, TML applied for STOA (for April and May, 2016) and MTOA

(from June, 2016 to March, 2019), which was processed by MSEDCL.

(5) The chronology of events and correspondence regarding the STOA and MTOA

applications shows that MSEDCL did not process the MTOA applications re-

submitted on 17 December, 2015, and directed TML to instead submit

applications for STOA for April and May, 2016 and MTOA from June, 2016 to

March, 2019.

Considering these facts, MSEDCL shall refund the processing fees paid in December,

2015 by adjustment in TML’s energy bill for the ensuing billing cycle.

The Petition of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. in Case No. 88 of 2016 stands disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Deepak Lad) (Azeez M. Khan)

Member Member