Page | 1

BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

GANDHINAGAR

Petition No. 1351 of 2013

In the matter of:

Denial of consent for Open Access by the DGVCL/GETCO to J. K. Papers Limited
with 3 Minutes Integration Period meter POC option.

Petitioner: M/s. J. K. Papers Ltd.
PO Central Pulp Mills, Fort Songadh,
Tapi, Gujarat- 394 600.

Represented by: Learned Advocate Shri Sunit Shah anlong with
Advocates Shri Ishan Patel and Shri A. T. Purohit.

V/s.

Respondent No.1: Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited,
Nana Varachha Road, Kapodara Char-Rasta,
Surat.

Represented by: Shri C. N. Raval and Shri B. R. Icecreamwala.

Respondent No.2: Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited.
Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara- 390 007.

Represented by: Ms. Venu Birappa and Shri J. A. Jani.

Respondent No.3: State Load Dispatch Centre,
Page | 2

132 Gotri Substation Compound,
Nr. T.B Hospital, Gotri Road, Vadodara.

Represented by: Shri D. M. Shah.


CORAM:
Shri Pravinbhai Patel, Member (Technical)
Dr. M.K. Iyer, Member (Finance)

Date: 20/11/2013


Daily Order

1. The matter was kept for hearing on 12.11.2013. Learned Advocate Shri Sunit Shah, on
behalf of the petitioner , submitted that the present petition has been filed on account of
denial of open access by the respondent No. 1 stating that the correct energy accounting
is not possible with 3 minute integration meter which is installed at the petitioners
premise as he has opted for levy of Parallel Operation Charges, as per the order of the
Commission in the petition No. 256 of 2003, 867 of 2006 and 941 of 2008. He further
submitted that the respondent had initially allowed the open access with 3 minute
integration meter installed at the petitioners place. However, later on the respondent
denied the same and was forcing the petitioner to opt for option of adoption of
commercial circular No. 706 which is contrary to decision of the Commission in petition
No. 256 of 2003 and allied matters.

2. Ms. Venu Birapaa, on behalf of the GETCO, submitted that the learned Advocate
representing the respondent No. 2 could not be remain present. Hence, the Commission
Page | 3

may grant a short adjournment. She further submitted that the DGVCL had initially
granted open access on 3 minute integration meter at the petitioners place which was a
mistake because for open access it is necessary carry out the energy accounting in 15
minute time block

2.1. She further submitted that it will not be possible to correct energy accounting as 3
minute integration meter cannot record all the necessary parameters in 15 minute time
block which is necessary for open access. The same issue has also been addressed by the
Commission in its order dated 5.08.2013 in the Petition No. 1290 of 2012 which involved
a similar matter. When the petitioner earlier applied for open access, the DGVCL did not
realize that the petitioner had opted for 3 minute integration meter for POC and at the
same time had applied for the open access for import of power from the market. After the
realization of mistake, the petitioner was asked to change the option as per the circular
No. 706 so that the open access with correct energy accounting could be possible. As far
as petitioners claim as to whether the respondents can unilaterally take POC option of 3
minute integration meter, she submitted that the Agreement itself provides that the
applicant may exercise change in the selected option once during a calendar year and the
same was suggested by the respondents to enable the correct energy accounting if the
petitioner opts for open access.

2.2. She further submitted that the Commission had observed decision in the similar case of
M/s. Saurashtra Cement Limited in order dated 5.08.2013 in Petition No. 1290 of 2013
that proper energy metering system is necessary when consumer opts for open access as
well as POC of 3 minute integration period. Therefore, the denial of open access is only
on a ground of non-available necessary proper metering system at a consumer premise.
Page | 4

3. In reply to submissions made by the respondents, learned Advocate Shri Sunit Shah, on
behalf of the petitioner, submitted that they have no objection to the adjournment, however,
denial of the open access by the respondent No. 1 and suggesting petitioner to opt for the
POC mechanism as per Commercial Circular No. 706 is not valid. The same is also
questionable mainly on four grounds viz. (i) Whether the distribution licensee DGVCL can
unilaterally take away the POC option of 3 minutes integration meter given to the petitioner
under the agreement, order of the GERC and Gujarat High Court without approaching GERC
and obtaining its sanction? (ii) Whether the GERC has jurisdiction to set aside the agreement
which is valid/binding and irrevocable for 10 years? (iii) Can respondent Nos. 1 and 2
prevent petitioner from purchasing power under open access by withholding the
consent/NOC? (iv) Should not GERC issue appropriate general direction to the distribution
licensee from unilaterally changing the Terms and Conditions without the approval of the
GERC so as to avoid pecuniary loss to the consumers?

3.1. He further submitted that the petitioner had filed LPA No. 981 of 2013 before the Honble
High Court of Gujarat in this regard which was later withdrawn with a view to approach the
Commission. The petitioner had further requested the Honble High Court of Gujarat to
direct the Commission to decide the matter expeditiously. The Honble High Court of
Gujarat, the Honble High Court in its oral order dated 19.09.2013 recorded that the request
of the petitioner was reasonable. It also recorded that in case the matter in not heard and
decided finally by the 31.10.2013, it will be open for the petitioner to request the
Commission to grant interim relief for purchase of power under open access.

3.2. He also submitted that the industry of the petitioner is continuous process industries and the
CGP of the petitioner had planned to undertake shutdown for a period of one month and
Page | 5

hence the petitioner requires to go for open access to purchase the power required by him.
The petitioner had been allowed open access for 8 months with present metering arrangement
and it is only after the March, 2013 , that the petitioner was denied open access on account of
no proper energy accounting due to 3 minute integration meter. Hence, it requested the
Commission to direct the respondents to allow the open access to the petitioner till the
pendency of the petition.


4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. The present hearing was
kept to decide the admissibility of the matter. The petitioner is having a captive generating
plant , within meaning of Section 2 (8) read with Section 9 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and
also open access customer as per the regulations framed under GERC (Terms and Condition
for Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011, whereas the respondent No. 1 is a
distribution licensee and the respondent No.2 is a transmission licensee and State
Transmission Utility, unbundled from erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board. Respondent No. 3
, State Load Dispatch Centre, is a nodal agency for Short-Term Open Access. As the issue
under dispute is pertaining to open-access, the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the
Commission as per the Sections 86 (1) (f) , Section 42 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 read
with GERC (Terms and Conditions of Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011. Hence,
the present petition is admitted.

4.1. Now, considering the prayers made by the petitioner for grant of interim relief in terms of
allowing open access till pendency of the petition, we note that the petitioner was allowed
open access by the respondent for a period of 8 months i.e. up to 28.02.2013. Thereafter, the
respondent No.1 and 2 denied the same on a ground of non-availability of proper energy
Page | 6

meters for recording of the energy drawn in 3 minute and 15 minute time blocks for proper
energy accounting form the grid by the petitioner. We note that the respondent have initially
allowed the petitioner for open access without proper energy meter recording the energy
drawal in 15 minute block and later on denied in ground of non-availability of proper meter.
Hence, the issue involved in the present case is to decide whether the 3 minute integration
meter installed at the petitioners place is adequate for the purpose of POC as well as the
open access. The petitioner has further submitted that the CGP of the petitioner is planned to
be taken under shutdown for maintenance work for a period of one month. Hence, the
petitioner needs to purchase electricity under open access. The non-availability of the open
access affects the petitioner whose plant is operating under continuous process. Thus, we are
of view that the interim relief sought by the petitioner to grant an open access seems valid for
operation of the petitioners company which has requirement of additional power during
shutdown of its CGP. So far as the question of energy accounting is concerned, we observe
that the petitioner was earlier also granted open access, and as such granting of interim relief
should not come in the way of energy accounting. Hence, we decide and direct the
respondent to grant open access to the petitioner till the period of next hearing in the present
case on application of petitioner for open access so that petitioner does not suffer due to non-
availability of adequate power supply.

4.2. Based on the above observations we direct the respondents to grant open-access to the
petitioner up to next date of hearing on application to be made by the petitioner for the same.

4.3. Both the petitioner and the respondent are directed to make their submissions, if any, within a
weeks time on the energy accounting and existing metering system and whether the existing
system is capable of proper recording the energy in 3 minute integration period and 15-
Page | 7

minute integration period for the purpose of POC and energy accounting under open access
purpose.

4.4. We also note that the respondents have sought an adjournment as their advocate could not be
present today. As the petitioner has no objection towards adjournment, we decide to grant the
adjournment and post the matter on 30.11.2013.


5. We order accordingly.

6. The next date of hearing will be on 30.11.2013 at 11.30 A.M.



Sd/- Sd/-
[Dr. M.K. IYER] [PRAVINBHAI PATEL]
Member (Finance) Member (Technical)

Place : Gandhinagar
Date : 20 /11/2013.