X hits on this document

PDF document

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 - page 3 / 14

36 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

3 / 14

3

As regards transmission charges, the petitioner contented that the charges should be worked out on the basis of the depreciation of the original cost of the transmission system from Madakkathara to Kalamassery, interest on loan, if any, and O&M expenses and pro-rata charges for 30 MW apportioned against the maximum loading of 400 MW for the transmission lines. The petitioner has estimated that the transmission charges for transmission of power from Madakkathara to Indal Alupuram Smelter premises would be

Ps 2.5/kWh only. Board on TNEB only Ps 2.5/kWh.

The petitioner has pointed out that the wheeling charge levied by the for transmitting power through Moozhiyar-Theni 220 kV feeder was The petitioner has therefore contented that the transmission charges

for

transmitting

power

from

Madakkathara

to

Indal

should

not

exceed

Ps

2.5/kWh.

As regards transmission losses, the petitioner has contented that the transmission loss of 8% claimed by the Board included losses in the 220 kV, 110 kV and 66 kV systems. The actual transmission loss in 220 kV system would be much lower than 2%. As per the calculation submitted by the petitioner, transmission loss for transmitting power from Madakkathara to Indal would work out only to 2.54%.

As regards surcharge to compensate the cross subsidy, the petitioner stated that

the cross subsidy should be determined by supply with the tariff rate for the consumer. would arise only when the tariff of a particular

comparing the Board's average cost of Therefore the question of cross subsidy consumer is more than the average cost of

supply. average

Since tariff

in this particular case, rate of the consumer

the average cost of supply is (petitioner) is Rs 3.38, there

Rs 3.99/kWh was no cross

and the subsidy

applicable to to the Board.

the

petitioner.

The

petitioner

was

therefore

not

liable

to

pay

any

surcharge

1.4

In response to certain clarification sought by the Commission from the KSEB on

6th August, 2003, the KSEB furnished the reply on 25th August, 2003.

On the query regarding quantum and direction of power flow on the 220 kV

system, the

KSEB has

Kalamassery

and from

conditions.

The Board

transmission

loss of 8%.

informed that power flow is from Idukki/Bhramapuram to Lower Periyar/Idukki to Madakkathara under all operating did not furnish details of calculation for arriving at the

Board further stated that fixed charges on account of withdrawal of 30 MW by Indal would cause an additional liability of approximately Rs 2 crores per month which need to be compensated by Indal.

1.5 Indal surrendered the power supply by KSEB to the smelter plant with effect from 1.8.2003.

  • 2.

    Hearing of the Matter

    • 2.1

      In the proceedings of the Commission held on 2.9.2003, the parties to the petition

were heard.

Document info
Document views36
Page views36
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 21:24:55 UTC 2016
Pages14
Paragraphs510
Words6274

Comments