BEFORE THE HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION,
SHIMLA
M/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd
SCO 191-192, Sector 34-A,
Chandigarh-160022
(through Sh.Sanjeev Mittal its Deputy General Manager) and
M/S Ind-Barath Energies Ltd
… Petitioner No.1
Plot No. 30-A, Road No.1, Film Nagar,
Jubille Hills, Hyderabad -500033
(through Sh. R.V. Ramana Raju General Manager)
VPO Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P.)
V/s
The H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd.
(through its Chief Executive Officer)
…Petitioner No.2
Kumar House, Shimla-171004
Petition No.13 of 2011
& M.A. No. 54 of 2012
… Respondent
(Decided on 17.4.2012)
CORAM
SUBHASH C. NEGI
CHAIRMAN
Petitioners represented by: Sh. Ajay Vaidya
Advocate
Respondent represented by: Sh. Romesh Chauhan
(Authorised representative)
Er. J.P. Kalta,
Chief Engineer (Comml.)

ORDER
(Last heard on 17 th
March, 2012 and Orders reserved)
M/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, having its Corporate office at
SCO 191-192, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022 (through Sh. Sanjeev Mittal its Deputy General Manager) the developers of the 2.50 MW Manuni –I
Hydro Electric Project on Manuni Khad, a tributary of river Beas, in Kangra
District (H.P) and M/S Ind-Barath Energies Ltd, having its Corporate office at
Plot No. 30-A, Road No.1, Film Nagar, Jubille Hills, Hyderabad -500033
(through Sh. R.V. Ramana Raju General Manager) the developers of 4.8 MW
Manuni –II SHEP at village Kharota, P.O. Khaniara, Tehsil Dharamshala,
Kangra Distt (both jointly hereinafter referred as “the petitioners”) have approached this Commission for the approval of the use of the common line for evacuation of power to be generated from their respective projects to the
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (hereinafter referred as “the
HPSEBL) 33/11 kV Sub-station, Sidhpur in Kangra District (H.P.).
2. Before dealing with the contentions of the respective parties on this issue, it is worthwhile to refer the relevant facts for proper disposal of this petition.
3. An agreement for wheeling, banking and captive use of power was executed between M/S Winsome Textile Industries Ltd, the developers of
Manuni–I SHEP (i.e. petitioner No. 1) and the HPSEBL on 30.3.2000, where- under the power generated from the Manuni–I project was to be evacuated through a 33 kV single circuit line to the interconnection point at the
HPSEBL’s 33/11 kV Sub-station Sidhpur, in Kangra District.
2

4. Initially M/s Winsome Textile Industries Ltd i.e. petitioner No.1 moved petition No. 13 of 2011, for approval of the use of common line, stating that it shall undertake the construction of 33 kV double circuit line only for evacuation of power from Manuni-I SHEP upto interconnection point of
HPSEBL’s Sub-station and wanted that power from Manuni-II SHEP, being developed in the vicinity of its project, may also be allowed to be evacuated through the said double circuit 33 kV line in a joint mode. The petitioner however did not specify the mode of disposal of power from the other project i.e. Manuni-II (4.8 MW). Even though the cost sharing agreement had been executed by the developers of Manuni–II SHEP with the petitioner No.1, the developers of Manuni–II were neither the co-petitioners nor had they been impleaded as a party.
5. The respondent Board stated that due to scarcity of line corridor and space for installation of 33kV dedicated bays, the TEC of Manuni–II SHEP required the developers, to evacuate power jointly with Manuni–SHEP in consultation with the Board, It was also stated that the concerned Company
(Manuni-II) should enter into a viable mutual agreement clearly mentioning the sharing of the charges and the T&D losses etc. in the common system and the same should also be got vetted from HPSEBL. The respondent also submitted that the petition should have been moved/filed on behalf of M/S
Ind-Barath Energies Ltd (i.e. petitioner No.2) the promoters of Manuni-II
SHEP, who are to use the system of the petitioner No.1. The respondent also submitted that HPSEBL shall not give any benefits of deemed generation to any of the joint users for any fault in the evacuation line upto the evacuation point or for any loss of generation due to dispute between the joint users of the
3

evacuation line and that for both the projects the interconnection point will be deemed at 33 kV Sub-station, Sidhpur.
6. The petition was also required to be in conformity with the guidelines given by the Commission in its various orders on joint power evacuation arrangements in Petition No. 254/2006 M/s Sai Krishna Hydro Energies
Ltd & others V/s HPSEB decided on 25.8.2007, followed in petition No.
105 of 2008 M/S AT Hydro Ltd and others V/s HPSEB; Petition No.
92/2009; M/s Batot Hydro Power Ltd & others V/s Secy HPSEB decided on 21.12.2009, and Petition No. 83/2010 M/s Sai Engineering Foundation
V/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 31.7.2010,
7. The petitioner subsequently submitted a copy of the revised agreement signed by it with the developer of the other SHEP on 1.12.2011 without formal consultations with the HPSEBL. Accordingly, HPSEBL was also to be given an opportunity to express their views on the cost sharing agreement executed by the petitioners, as the consultation of the HPSEBL was obligatory for working out the joint power evacuation arrangements.
8. In view of the residual unattended deficiencies in Petition No. 13 of
2011, out of those pointed out in preceding paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this Order, the petitioner was directed to implead the developers of SHEP- Manuni-II, as a party to this petition and HPSEBL was directed to offer its comments on the cost sharing agreement dated 1.12.2011 executed by the promoters of both the projects.
9. Pursuant to the above directions the promoters of the Manuni-II SHEP, have moved petition No. 54 of 2012, joining as a party to the proceedings in petition No. 13 of 2011, already moved by the petitioner No.1.
4

10. The HPSEBL, after perusal of the agreement executed by the petitioners on 1.12.2011, submits that the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement are on the basis of the draft guidelines duly vetted by the competent authority of the HPSEBL and hence the same are satisfactory. But it has been categorically urged, on behalf of the HPSEBL, that for both the projects the interconnection point will be deemed at HPSEBL’s 33 kV Substation, Sidhpur in Kangra Distt. and it will not give any benefits of deemed generation to any of the joint users for any fault in the evacuation line upto the interconnection point or for any loss of generation due to dispute between the joint users of the evacuation line.
11. From the pleadings of the parties it is evident that both the above mentioned power projects, namely Manuni–I and Manuni–II SHEPs are located in the same vicinity in the Kangra District. The Power project
Manuni–I is a cascading project downstream of Manuni–II, SHEP. The petitioners submit that as per the proposed arrangement both of them will be injecting power at 33 kV from their respective SHEPs to the HPSEBL’s
33/11kV Sub-station, Sidhpur, Distt. Kangra (H.P) through two separate circuits of the 33 kV double circuit line on common structures. In the absence of any arrangement for joint evacuation of power, the 33 kV double circuit
H.T. line would be undertaken by the petitioner No.1 only for the evacuation of power from the Manuni–I power house to the HPSEBL’s 33/11 kV Substation Sidhpur, Distt. Kangra. The proposed arrangements for evacuation of power from the two projects upto the Interconnection point in a joint mode will improve corridor utilization and will result in less number of tree cuttings and further this will be economical as well as environmentally suitable in the
5

hilly terrain. It will also be in the interest of natural heritage to conserve the natural resources.
12. Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 obligates the State Commission to promote generation of electricity from renewables by providing suitable measures for connectivity with the Grid. All the more, regulation 3(3) of the
Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Power Procurement from Renewable Sources and Co-generation by Distribution Licensee)
Regulations, 2007 provides that the generator, with the approval of the
Commission, may enter into suitable agreement for joint project lines for two or more projects and inject power into the grid through the joint evacuation system.
13. Both the petitioners have executed the Agreement for sharing the cost of Establishment, Operation and Maintenance of the 33 kV HT double circuit line from Manuni–I SHEP to the HPSEBL’s 33/11 kV Sub-station Sidhpur, in
Kangra Distt. (H.P). The petitioners have also agreed to meet the technical requirements regarding voltage profile, and protection etc. and also for signing interconnection agreements. The petitioners have also agreed amongst themselves that in case of interruption/ breakdown of any one feeder the other party shall provide full support and will provide assistance by giving permit to work on the healthy feeder and will not ask for any deemed generation from either HPSEBL or the affected party. The HPSEBL has subscribed to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement executed on 1.12.2011 by both the petitioners.
14. A copy of the agreement executed by the petitioners amongst themselves has been taken on record. The Commission shall refer the same
6

for the limited purpose of examining feasibility of the proposal for joint evacuation of power, keeping in view the fact that such agreements form internal arrangements between the parties and do not form the subject matter of Commission’s approval.
15. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, perusal of the statutory provisions contained in Act and regulations framed hereunder, and after going through the pleadings made, and hearing the averments made, on behalf of the parties by their Learned Counsels/representatives, this
Commission accords its approval for evacuation of power from the two
SHEPs through two separate circuits of the 33 kV double circuit line on common structures, as aforesaid, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) the IPPs shall maintain voltage profile and voltage regulations in the dedicated system within the limits as may be required for integrated operation of their projects with the grid;
(ii) the safety aspects will not be ignored in any respect while designing, constructing and operating the joint system.
(iii) proper protection shall be made and the switchgear of suitable capacities shall be installed by the petitioners at their controlling Sub-stations. The single line diagram of the arrangements shall be got approved by the IPPs from HPSEBL.
(iv) the petitioners shall establish, operate and maintain the joint system in accordance with the electricity laws, rules and regulations including the Grid Code and standards of Grid connectivity, technical standards for construction of lines and as per norms of system operation and directions of the SLDC regarding operation of dedicated transmission system. If so required by HPSEBL at any stage, the petitioners will enter into supplementary agreement(s) amongst themselves for left out aspects if any The petitioners would supply copy of such arrangement(s), to be entered into by them, to the HPSEB also.
(v) the approval of the proposal for evacuation of power in joint mode shall not be construed, in any way, as commitment from the HPSEBL to evacuate power from SHEPs matching with the
7

time schedule of their commissioning. The time frame for evacuation of power in such cases shall need to be sorted out separately by the petitioners with the HPSEBL.
(vi) the interconnection point(s) for both the projects shall be at
HPSEBL’s Sub-station at Sidhpur. The petitioner shall finalise the arrangements to be provided at the interconnecting Substation at Sidhpur with HPSEBL duly taking into account the space constrains, if any, and shall also sign the requisite interconnection agreement(s) with the HPSEBL immediately and deposit the estimated cost for providing interconnection facilities as per mutually agreed schedule, so as to enable
HPSEBL to construct interconnection facilities at the proposed
Sub-Station at Sidhpur;
(vii) the IPPs shall seek prior permission of the HPSEBL and any other concerned authorities before connecting any power house/line to the joint system;
(viii) the approval of the proposed joint mode system shall in no way, absolve the petitioner IPPs from their obligations to obtain, in advance, all the requisite statutory/non-statutory clearances for construction, operation and maintenance of the joint system.
(ix) the IPPs shall allow usage of the joint mode system for carriage of power from any other source (over and above the power from the SHEPs), if so directed by the Commission at any stage. In such an event, terms and conditions including the charges payable to IPPs shall also be decided by the
Commission
16. As regards the deemed generation, the matter shall be regulated as per relevant provisions in the relevant agreements with HPSEBL. The
Commission however expects that the petitioner No.2 shall finalise the mode of disposal of power from Manuni–II SHEP and enter into requisite agreements at the earliest. Subject to item (vi) of the preceding paragraph, if the power from the two projects is metered separately the energy accounting can also be done separately. However, in case the power injected through the common metering system due to some reasons, including space constraints, the petitioners shall evolve suitable mechanism to the satisfaction of HPSEBL within the framework of relevant agreements containing provisions for
8

deemed generation. As regards the loss of generation due to any problem in the joint system, the Commission feels that since the interconnection point(s) for both the projects shall be at 33 kV Sub-station at Sidhpur it is implied that the IPPs shall not be entitled to any loss of generation due to breakdown etc or to any dispute between the petitioner IPPs about the joint system. As a matter of fact the petitioners have already agreed on these lines in their agreement dated 1.12.2011 and there should not be any doubt in this regard. However since HPSEBL had raised a specific observation in this regard, the issue is so decided for sake of clarity.
Both the petitions i.e. petition No. 13 of 2011 and petition No. 54 of
2012, stands disposed of accordingly.
It is so ordered.
(Subhash C. Negi)
Chairman.
9