IN RE: STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Review Petitioner, State Load Despatch Centre, Gujarat has filed this Review Petition seeking review of the Commission's order dated 18.12.2013 in Petition No. 208/SM/2011 wherein the Commission had directed staff of the Commission to process the case for initiation of action under section 142 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against the Officers -in -charge of STUs/SLDCs of the respondent States.

(2.) THE Review Petitioner has submitted that the order dated 18.12.2013 has been passed by the Commission without considering the earlier record of proceedings including order dated 7.8.2013 in Petition No. 246/MP/2009 and various other materials on record which are errors apparent on the face of the record. The Review Petitioner has submitted that there are otherwise sufficient cause for review of the order dated 18.12.2013.

(3.) THE Review Petitioner has submitted that in reply to the Suo Motu Petition No. 208/2011, the Review Petitioner had filed an affidavit explaining the steps taken by it for compliance of Regulation 5.4.2 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid Code) Regulations, 2010 (Grid Code). The Review Petitioner has further submitted that the Commission in the Record of Proceedings dated 10.1.2012 has taken note of the submission of the representative of Gujarat SLDC that Automatic Load Management Scheme had not been implemented by the State as there was no deficit power situation in the State to which the Commission clarified that the scheme had to be implemented as per the Grid Code to curtail overdrawal from the grid. The Review Petitioner has submitted that the following steps have been taken by the Review Petitioner for implementation of the scheme: (a) On 16.1.2012, importance of ADMS was discussed by Managing Director, GETCO in a high level meeting of all Discoms; (b) In the first State Operation Co -ordination Committee (SOCC) meeting held on 24.3.2012, the Review Petitioner emphasized that ADMS has to be compulsorily implemented by all distribution Companies at the earliest; (c) In the second SOCC meeting held on 20.8.2012, the Review Petitioner after taking note of the tardy progress made by the distribution companies in the matter of ADMS, directed the distribution companies to prepare concrete plan for implementation of ADMS; (d) In the third OCC meeting held on 1.1.2013, the Review Petitioner directed Torrent Power who was stated to have developed scheme for implementation of ADMS, to share the logic of its scheme with other distribution companies to help them in formulating their own scheme; (e) In the 4th SOCC meeting held on 11.5.2013, the Review Petitioner took note of the fact that none of the distribution companies in the state has taken any measures for implementation of ADMS. The Review Petitioner suggested the distribution companies to include the following logic with 'AND' condition as a feature of the ADMS: (i) Average frequency block is below 49.8 Hz and there is downward trend of system frequency; (ii) State overdrawal is more than 150 MW; (iii) Particular DISCOM overdrawal is more than 50 MW. (f) In the 5th SOCC meeting held on 31.10.2013, all distribution companies informed that load had been identified for implementation of ADMS. The Review Petitioner reiterated the logic suggested by it in the 4th SOCC meeting to be implemented by the distribution companies. The Review Petitioner also entrusted the responsibility to SE, SLDC to find out the technology and implement the scheme, for which all distribution companies agreed.