X hits on this document

PDF document

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003 - page 4 / 14

57 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

4 / 14

4

2.2

The representatives of the petitioner reiterated the arguments made in the petition

and the subsequent rejoinder to the response of the KSEB. The petitioner contented that

there was no transmission constraint in transmitting 30 MW power

interconnecting point at Madakkathara to the Aluminium smelter

The

representatives

of

the

petitioner

stated

that

till

recently

the

plant at smelter

from the Alupuram. plant was

receiving about flowed from the

30 MW from the KSEB system. This quantum of power physically BSES power station to the smelter plant and the same situation will

continue

even

after

delivery

of

30

MW

at

Madakkathara

by

PTC.

The

only

difference

would be that correspondingly

generation in the KSEB system

in

reduced.

The total capability of import of

the southern part could be power into KSEB system was

around

1100

MW

and

the

actual

import

requirement

in

the

immediate

future

would

not

exceed 750 400/220 kV

MW. The petitioner also contented that there was adequate margin transformer capacity at Madakkathara to permit import of 30 MW of

in the power

required by the petitioner. The petitioner therefore pleaded for allowing open access the transmission system of KSEB for importing 30 MW of power from PTC Madakkathara and transmitting the power to the smelter plant at Alupuram.

to at

On

transmission

charges,

the

petitioner

stated

that

the

demand

of

KSEB

for

a

transmission charge of Ps 35/kWh was exorbitant. unscientific to base the transmission charges on

The petitioner

the

cost

of

argued that it was transmission for

Kayamkulam power station as the transmission system associated with the station was dedicated for transmitting the power from the station alone. The cost of transmission would vary depending on the quantum of energy generated at the station and the capital cost. If the generation was low, the per unit transmission charges would be high. The charges would be still higher in the case of Kayamkulam transmission system since it was constructed very recently with huge capital investment. The petitioner pointed out that for supply of Kayamkulam power to Tamil Nadu, KSEB was charging only Ps 2.5/kWh

for usage petitioner

of the 220 kV Moozhiar-Theni line of KSEB.

The representatives of the

also

quoted

an

instance

where

the

Central

Electricity Regulatory Commission

had

fixed

the

tariff

@

Ps

2.5/kWh

for

usage

of

220

kV

transmission

system

of

Grid

Corporation

of

Orissa

by

the

Madhya

Pradesh

Electricity

Board.

The

petitioner

also

stated

that in the concept paper on open access in Inter-State Transmission brought out

by

the

Central

Electricity

Regulatory

Commission,

the

transmission

charge

has

been

worked out as Ps 1.98/kWh for stated that taking into account

100 the

KM usage of transmission system. The petitioner transmission systems between Madakkathara and

Alupuram, the transmission charges would not therefore pleaded that the transmission charge 2.5/kWh.

exceed

Ps 2.5/kWh.

should

not be fixed

The petitioner higher than Ps

As regards transmission losses, the petitioner stated that the power flow would be by displacement. While the petitioner would be physically drawing power from the BSES power station, the 30 MW power received at Madakkathara would be flowing to North Kerala. The representatives of the petitioner argued that the KSEB would be in a position to reduce power generation to the extent of 30 MW in the power stations in the

Document info
Document views57
Page views57
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 13:31:06 UTC 2017
Pages14
Paragraphs510
Words6274

Comments