BEFORE THE ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. I.A.No. 12 of 2017 in O.P.Nos.

Transcription

1

2 BEFORE THE ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH I.A.No. 12 of 2017 in O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 IN THE MATTER OF: Seeking approval of the Honourable Commission for the true up for FY pertaining to the increase in power purchase costs and additional subsidy required from the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards additional sales to agricultural consumers during FY AND IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited (APSPDCL)& 2. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited (APEPDCL) - Petitioners Govt. of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Affidavit - Respondent I, N.Narasimhulu, Son of Sri N.Guravaiah, aged about 47 years, residing at Tirupati, the deponent named above do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:- 1. That the deponent is the Chief General Manager, Operation of Southern Power Distribution Company of AP duly authorised by APSPDCL to make this affidavit on behalf of both APDISCOMs (APSPDCL & APEPDCL) and the deponent is acquainted with the facts deposed below, 1

3

4 BEFORE THE ANDHRA PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE MATTER OF: I.A.No. 12 of 2017 in O.P.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2015 Seeking approval of the Honourable Commission for the true up for FY pertaining to the increase in power purchase costs and additional subsidy required from the Government of Andhra Pradesh towards additional sales to agricultural consumers during FY AND IN THE MATTER OF: 1. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited (APSPDCL)& 2. Eastern Power Distribution Company of A.P Limited (APEPDCL) - Petitioners Govt. of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Chief Secretary, Velagapudi, Amaravathi - Respondent MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH THE SUBMISSION: The APDISCOMs humbly submits the following: Application for True-up for FY and Additional Subsidy required from Government of AP towards additional sales to agricultural consumers during FY Background: As per Clause 2 of First Amendment to Regulation 4 of 2005, the licensees are entitled to claim true-up for Retail Supply Business on an annual basis. The Principal regulation i.e. Regulation 4 of 2005 has considered Power Purchase Cost as an uncontrollable item related to Retail Supply business of 2

5 the licensee and the First Amendment to the principal regulation (Regulation 1 of 2014) has provided the methodology of computing the applicable true-up. 2 Licensees Filings on True-up for FY The Licensees, as part of Tariff Filings , have filed the True-up applicable for FY as Rs. 887 Cr.The following is the excerpts from the Retail Tariff Filings of APEPDCL (Section 11). As per Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff for Wheeling and Retail Sale of Electricity) First Amendment Regulation, 2014, the licensee has computed the true-up for FY As per the said regulation, a. The Distribution licensee shall include the power purchase cost variation over the previous year Power purchase cost in the Tariff Order as expense (in the event of incurring excess cost)/ rebate (in case of saving) in the ARR as special item with relevant details. To arrive at the power purchase cost variation, the least of the following power purchase quantity is to be considered: i) Actual power purchase quantity procured by the Discoms for its consumers ii) Power purchase quantity computed based on actual sales except LT Agriculture sales. LT Agriculture sales will be limited to Tariff Order quantity. These aggregated sales will be grossed up with approved losses for the relevant year in the MYT Orders. The allowable power procurement quantum was used to re-compute the Merit Order Dispatch and the normative variable costs. The total of the difference between the approved and actual values of Fixed Costs, Variable Costs, Incentives and Other Expenses is the regulatory true-up. The following table shows the break-up for the true-up for H1 and H2 of FY : True-up for APEPDCL (Rs. Cr.) APSPDCL (Rs. Cr.) State (Rs. Cr.) Total FY

6 3 Direction of APERC in Retail Supply Tariff Order The Honourable Commission, in the matter of True-up for FY has mentioned in Tariff Order that, The filings are devoid of verifiable information to satisfactorily determine the permissibility or impermissibility of the various amounts and purchases claimed. The bald information, without support of any details of the purchases and costs being inconformity with the detailed Tariff Order issued by this Commission for FY cannot provide any satisfactory basis for any comprehensive adjudication of the claim and even stakeholders are disabled from expressing any concrete views/objections on such inadequate material. While the Commission is examining the issue of developing appropriate formats for enabling the Commission to have full information, it is also looking into the manner in which such information should be placed in the public domain not only for ensuring transparency and accountability but also for enabling persons with expertise and/or experience to place their informed views before this Commission. Hence, the Commission has decided not to take any final decision on the admissibility or otherwise of this true-up claim for 887 crores for the FY , while the licensees are at liberty to approach the Commission with an appropriate application for trueup in accordance with law as provided by the relevant Regulation. The true-up claim made by the distribution licensees is hence provisionally not accepted for the present. 4 Revised Filing for True-Up for FY Based on the directions of the Honourable Commission, the licensees would like to submit the revised application providing additional details with regard to the deviations which has resulted in True-Up requirement for FY The licensees in the following sections have provided the following details a) Deviation in Source Wise Energy Despatch in FY with respect to the Approved Despatch as per Tariff Order FY b) Comparison of Approved Power Purchase Costs and Actual Power Purchase Costs 4

7 5 Deviation in Source wise Energy Despatch The following table shows the difference between the approved and actual despatch from the major sources as approved by the Honourable Commission in the Tariff Order FY : Generating Station Energy Despatch (MU) Approved Actual Deviation 1(a) APGENCO Thermal 18,035 12,338 (5,697) 1(b) TSGENCO 7,043 6,842 (201) 1(c) APGENCO Hydel 3,404 2,320 (1,083) 1 APGENCO + TSGENCO 28,481 21,500 (6,981) 2 Central Generating Stations 12,209 12, APGPCL IPPs-Gas 1,231 2,484 1,253 5 NCE 2,805 2,363 (442) 6 IPPs-Others 8,659 3,523 (5,136) 7 MARKET 757 7,340 6,584 8 TOTAL (From All Sources) 54,225 49,514 (4,711) It can be observed that the licensees have procured power from Market and Gas based IPPs majorly due to the shortfall in the energy of i) APGENCO thermal stations (around 5,700 MU), ii) IPPs Others (Hinduja and other IPPS) (around 5,100 MU), iii) APGENCO Hydel stations (around 1,100 MU), and iv) Non-conventional Sources (around 450 MU) The following subsections deal with each of the above factors. (The month-wise details are provided in Annexure-I) 5

8 5.1 Shortfall in despatch from APGENCO thermal stations The following table shows the comparison between the approved and actual energy despatch from APGENCO thermal stations: Generating Station Total FY 16 Approved Actual Deviation 1 VTPS I-III 3, , (239.54) 2 VTPS IV 1, , (357.43) 3 RTPP Stage-I , RTPP Stage-II , RTPP Stage-III Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal power plant - I 5, , (2,443.93) 7 Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal power plant - II 5, , (3,435.58) 8 Differential Cost between Scheduled Energy & Energy as per RATIO Total APGENCO Thermal 18, , (5,696.80) From the above table it can be seen that against the approved 10,484 MU from Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal Plant (I&II) only 4,605 MU were actually despatched. The delay in the commissioning of these two thermal units led to a shortfall of around 5,880 MU over the year FY Shortfall in despatch from IPPs-Others The following table shows the comparison between the approved and actual energy despatch from IPPs-Others: Generating Station Energy Despatch (MU) Approved Actual Deviation 1 Srivathsa (20.68) 2 KSK Mahanadi 1, , Hinduja 5, (5,426.99) 4 Thermal Power Tech 1, , RVK Energy Pvt Ltd Total IPPs- Others 8, , (5,135.92) Against the approved energy despatch of 5,881 MU, only 454 MU of energy were despatched from Hinduja National Power Corporation Ltd (HNPCL). This led to energy shortfall of more than 5,135 MU over the year FY The delay in commissioning of these stations was the reason for the low despatch from HNPCL. 6

9 5.3 Shortfall in despatch from APGENCO Hydel stations The following table shows the comparison between the approved and actual energy despatch from APGENCO hydel stations: Generating Station Energy Despatch (MU) Approved Actual Deviation 1 MACHKUND PH AP Share TUNGBHADRA PH AP Share Upper Sileru Power House Lower Sileru Power House 1, , DONKARAYI Srisailam Right Bank Power House 1, (1,023.18) 7 Nagarjunasagar Right Bank Power House (0.45) (148.98) 8 Penna Ahobilam MINI HYDEL(Chettipeta) (0.68) 10 Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond Dam Power House (173.25) Total APGENCO Hydel 3, , (1,083.15) Against the approved energy despatch of 3,400 MU, only 2,320 MU of energy were despatched from the hydel stations of APGENCO. This energy shortfall of around 1,080 MU over the year FY was also a major reason for high short term purchases during the year. If the Hydel generation over the past few years is looked into, it could be discerned that over the years Hydel power generation has deviated from the approved values significantly. This is majorly because ofthe poor rainfall in the state over the years and also Srisailam Right Bank Power House and Nagarjunsagar Right Bank Power House have been used more and more as Irrigation projects than as power generators. Year Approved Actual Variation ,999 3,337-52% ,757 2,959-56% ,423 5,267-18% ,979 7,873 32% ,586 9,328 23% ,592 9,566 11% ,046 7,729-15% ,969 5,499-39% ,662 6,751-12% ,238 6,221-24% ,407 3,171-51% ,057 6,761-4% 7

10 5.4 Shortfall in despatch from Non-Conventional Energy Sources: The following table shows the comparison between the approved and actual energy despatch from NCE sources: Generating Station Energy Despatch (MU) Approved Actual Deviation 1 NCE - Bio-Mass NCE - Bagasse (12.47) 3 NCE - Municipal Waste to Energy (0.83) 4 NCE - Industrial Waste based power project NCE - Wind Power 1, , (227.87) 6 NCE - Mini Hydel (43.01) 7 NCE - NCL Energy Ltd NCE - Solar Projects (SPD) (325.07) Total Non-conventional Energy sources 2, , (441.92) Wind and solar sources are not very reliable sources as the generation depends upon the weather conditions. Hence, while around 1,980 MU of wind generation and 400 MU of solar generation was approved, only 1,750 MU and 79 MU respectively were actually generated. 5.5 Procurement of Power from Gas IPPs and Short Term Sources to bridge the shortfall of power: Due to the shortfall of the power from the above mentioned stations. The licensees have procured power from Gas IPPs more than the Approved Power Purchase. Generating Station Energy Despatch (MU) Approved Actual Deviation 1 GVK Spectrum (202.92) 3 Kondapalli (Gas) (110.04) 4 BSES (161.82) 5 GVK Extension Vemagiri Gautami GMR Rajahmundry Energy ltd.(768 MW) Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd (1108 MW) Total IPPs - Gas 1, , ,

11 Even after considering the power available from Gas IPPs, the licensee fell short of energy availability. Hence, the licensee in order to ensure reliable and uninterrupted power has entered into short term contracts for purchasing power from the market. These short term contracts consists of the Take or Pay Clause, i.e. the licensees have to pay 20% of Tariff as penalty for the shortfall of contracted power procurement. Considering this Clause, the licensees consider the 20% of penalty as a fixed cost and would consider 80% of Tariff in the Merit Order Despatch along with the variable cost of other available stations. Based on the above merit order method, the following energy is despatched from Market in comparison with the Approved energy despatch. Energy Despatch (MU) Generating Station Approved Actual Deviation Market , , Thus, around procurement of around 7,800 MU were carried out from IPPs-Gas (particularly the New IPPs) and short term sources in order to meet the shortfall from SDSTPS, Hinduja, Hydel and NCEs. 5.6 Deviation in Sales and T&D losses from approved values However, the total power procured was around 4,711 MU less than the approved values. This was because a) The actual sales were lower than the approved values, and 9

12 b) The actual T&D losses were lower than the approved values. The following table shows the details of the same: Category Approved (MU) Actual (MU) Deviation (MU) 1 LT-I 11, , LT-II 2, , LT-III 2, , LT-IV LT-V 9, , LT-VI (2.18) 7 LT-VII LT-VIII HT-I 16, , (4,632.13) 10 HT-II 1, , HT-III (51.71) 12 HT-IV HT-V 1, , (217.39) 14 HT-VI (6.50) 15 HT-VII HT-VIII (16.62) 17 RESCOs Total Sales 47, , (3,705.38) 19 Losses 6, , (1,005.33) 20 Power Purchase 54, , (4,710.71) 21 % Loss 12.61% 11.78% -0.83% While the actual sales were lower by around 3,705 MU from the approved values, the licensees also achieved losses better than the approved values by around 0.83% (reduction of losses by around 1,005 MU). Thus, overall the energy requirement was lower by 4,711 MU. 6 Comparison of Approved Power Purchase Costs and Actual Power Purchase Costs 6.1 Fixed Costs The Honourable Commission approved Rs. 6,771 Cr. as fixed costs payable to generators for FY Against the said amount, the licensees incurred Rs. 4,006Cr. as fixed costs, i.e. the licensees paid fixed costs lower by Rs. 2,765 Cr. 10

13 The following table shows the source wise comparison between the approved and actual fixed costs for FY : Generating Station Fixed Costs (Rs. Cr.) Approved Actual Deviation 1(a) APGENCO Thermal 2, (2,092.75) 1(b) TSGENCO Thermal (14.27) 1(c) APGENCO Hydel APGENCO + TSGENCO 4, , (1,906.30) 2 Central Generating Stations 1, , (98.92) 3 APGPCL (1.87) 4 IPPS - Gas Non-conventional Energy Sources IPPs - Others 1, (943.20) 7 Market TOTAL (From All Sources) 6, , (2,823.39) The major reduction in the fixed costs paid were from APGENCO Thermal stations and IPPs- Others. The same is shown in the following table: Generating Station Fixed Costs (Rs. Cr.) Approved Actual Deviation 1 VTPS I,II & III (11.33) 2 VTPS IV (6.40) 3 RTPP Stage - I (0.62) 4 RTPP Stage - II (0.38) 5 RTPP Stage - III (15.38) 6 Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal power plant - I 1, (1,029.32) 7 Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal power plant - II 1, (1,029.32) APGENCO Thermal 2, (2,092.75) 1 Srivastha (1.60) 2 KSK Mahanadi Hinduja 1, (1,027.86) 4 Thermal Power Tech IPPs- others 1, (943.20) The major sources for deviation of fixed costs were Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal power plant (DSTPP) and Hinduja plant. As the tariff for both of these plants were under the approval process of the Honourable Commission, an interim single part tariff (as fixed by the commission) were being paid to these generators. Thus, for the year FY , no fixed costs were paid to these generators leading to incurring lower fixed costs. 11

14 6.2 Variable Costs The Honourable Commission approved Rs per unit as the averagevariable costs for FY Against the said amount, the licensees incurred Rs per unit asaverage variable costs, i.e. the licensees paid higher variable costs by Rs per unit. The following table shows the source wise comparison between the approved and actual variable costs for FY : Generating Station Variable Cost (FY 15-16) (Rs. Cr.) Variable Cost (FY 15-16) (Rs/kWh) Approved Actual Deviation Approved Actual Deviation 1(a) APGENCO Thermal 4, , (473.40) (b) TSGENCO Thermal 1, , (c) APGENCO Hydel APGENCO + TSGENCO 6, , (333.60) Central Generating Stations 2, , (68.26) (0.06) 3 APGPCL IPPS - Gas , Non-conventional Energy Sources 1, , (96.28) IPPs - Others 1, (836.25) Market , , (0.32) 8 Other Charges (D-D Sales/Purchase [IBSS]) TOTAL (From All Sources) 12, , , Thus, the licensees incurred higher per unit variable costs than the approved values for most of the generation sources. The shortfall in the energy availability from DSTPP and Hinduja led to procurement from new gas based IPPs and short term sources. The increase in the variable costs of APGENCO stations is attributable to the increase in the cost of coal as well as the increase in transportation costs of coal. During this period, there was a congestion in the railway network leading to shortage of coal in APGENCO stations. In order to counter this, APGENCO also used the Rail Sea Rail mode of transportation. While this measure improved the availability of coal, it also led to an increase in the landed cost of coal in turn leading to rise in variable costs. 12

15 It was the endeavour of the licensees to reduce the power procurement cost from the short term sources, and accordingly the licensees were able to procure energy from the market at the average rate of Rs per unit as against the approved cost of Rs per unit as shown in the following table: Source Energy PP Cost PP Cost (MU) (Rs. Cr.) (Rs/Unit) JSW Power Trading Ltd. 1, Indian Energy Exchange 1, Anrak Aluminium Ltd., PTC NTPC Aravali Power, Delhi Shri Girija Alloy & Power Ltd., Thermal Powertech Corporation India Knowledge Infrastructure Systems Ltd Tata Power Trading(TPTCL) Sarda Metal and Alloys Ltd., Steel Exchange India Ltd NTPC(VVNL) GMR Energy Trading Ltd Ultra Tech Cement Manikaran Power Ltd., NSL Sugars Ltd., RAIN CII Corbon,Vizag Ltd Shree Cements ITC Limited BMM Cements Sri Sarvaraya Sugars Ltd., National Energy Trading Services Ltd Ramco Cements Ltd Bharathi Cements Ltd Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hyp Ltd KCP Limited Jaypee Balaji Cement Reliance Energy Trading Ltd GMR Rajahmundry Eng Ltd(GREL) Greenko Energies Pvt Ltd Mittal Processors Ltd Instinct Infra & Power Ltd Adani Enterprises Venkatraya Power Ltd (Trading) Blue Ocean Bio tech Ltd., Sri Sai Sindhu Industries Total Market 7, ,

16 6.3 Other Costs In addition to the fixed and variable costs paid to the generators, licensees also had to pay the interest on pension bonds for APGENCO stations both for FY and FY This amounted to an additional expense of Rs. 825 Cr. with respect to the approved power purchase expenses. 6.4 Summary of Costs The following table shows the summary of the power purchase costs borne by the source wise licensees during the year FY (The detailed station-wise comparison of Costs is shown in Annexure-II) : Generating Station Fixed Costs (Rs. Cr.) Variable Costs (Rs. Cr.) Other Costs (Rs. Cr.) Total Cost (Rs. Cr.) App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. 1 APGENCO Thermal 2, (2,093) 4,600 4,127 (473) ,523 5,791 (1,732) 2 TSGENCO Thermal (14) 1,490 1, (9) 2,310 2, APGENCO Hydel APGENCO + TSGENCO 4,078 2,172 (1,906) 6,091 5,757 (334) ,182 8,767 (1,415) 5 Central Generating Stations 1,172 1,073 (99) 2,917 2,848 (68) ,088 3,921 (167) 6 APGPCL 5 4 (2) IPPs - Gas , (24) 465 1, Non-conventional Energy Sources ,236 1,140 (96) ,236 1,140 (96) 9 IPPs-Others 1, (943) 1, (836) 1 - (1) 3,106 1,326 (1,780) 10 Market ,938 3, ,938 3, Other Charges (D-D Purchases/Sales [IBSS]) TOTAL (From All Sources) ,829 4,006 (2,823) 12,671 16,055 3, ,538 20,899 1,361 Hence, the total increase in power purchase costs for the licensees is Rs. 1,361 Cr. However, for the computation of true-up as per Regulation 1 of 2014, the LT agriculture sales have to be fixed at the Tariff Order approved values. The same has been carried out in the next section in order to compute the True-up for FY

17 7 True-up Computation for FY as per Regulations The licensees have computed the true-up for FY , as per Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff for Wheeling and Retail Sale of Electricity) First Amendment Regulation, As per the said regulation, a. The Distribution licensee shall include the power purchase cost variation over the previous year Power purchase cost in the Tariff Order as expense (in the event of incurring excess cost)/ rebate (in case of saving) in the ARR as special item with relevant details. To arrive at the power purchase cost variation, the least of the following power purchase quantity is to be considered: i) Actual power purchase quantity procured by the Discoms for its consumers ii) Power purchase quantity computed based on actual sales except LT Agriculture sales. LT Agriculture sales will be limited to Tariff Order quantity. These aggregated sales will be grossed up with approved losses for the relevant year in the MYT Orders. 15

18 The licensees have used the above methodology to compute the allowable power purchase quantity as per the following table: Sl. No. Particulars UNITS APEPDCL APSPDCL State (1) Total Actual Sales MU 14,969 28,710 43,679 (2) Approved Agricultural Sales MU 1,936 8,020 9,956 (3) Actual Agricultural Sales MU 2,149 8,480 10,629 (4) = (1)+(2)-(3) Allowable Sales MU 14,756 28,250 43,006 (5) Approved Losses % 11.81% 13.03% 12.61% (6) = (4)/(1-(5)) Revised Power Purchase MU 16,732 32,483 49,215 (7) Actual Power Purchased MU 16,335 33,179 49,514 (8) = min((6),(7)) Allowable Power Purchase MU 16,335 32,483 48,818 In order to compute the recoverable true-up, the allowable power purchase obtained above was used to reevaluate the merit order despatch for FY so as to arrive at the normative variable costs. The aggregate of the differences between the approved and actual values of fixed costs, variable costs (as computed using the allowable power purchase quantum), incentives and other expenses gives the regulatory True-up for FY The following table shows the summary of the computation of True-up for the state. The detailed station-wise computation of true-up is shown in Annexure-III. 16

19 Source of Energy Energy (MU) Fixed Cost Rs. Cr.) Variable Cost (Rs. Cr.) Other Cost (Rs. Cr.) Total PP Cost (Rs. Cr.) App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. APGENCO Thermal 25,077 19,180 (5,897) 3,729 1,622 (2,107) 6,091 5,757 (334) ,883 8,218 (1,665) APGENCO Hydel 3,404 2,320 (1,083) Central Generating Stations 12,208 12, ,172 1,073 (99) 2,917 2,848 (68) ,088 3,921 (167) APGPCL (2) IPPs-Gas 1,231 2,437 1, , (24) 465 1, Non-Conventional Energy Sources 2,805 2,363 (442) ,236 1,140 (96) ,236 1,140 (96) IPPs-Others 8,659 3,523 (5,136) 1, (943) 1, (836) 1 - (1) 3,106 1,326 (1,780) Market 757 6,691 5, ,586 3, ,586 3,155 Other Charges (D-D Sales [IBSS]) Total 54,225 48,818 (5,407) 6,829 4,006 (2,823) 12,671 15,662 2, ,538 20, Thus, the required True-up for FY is Rs. 968 Cr. S.No. True-up Required (Rs. Description Cr.) 1. Impact due to deviation in fixed costs (Majorly due to delay in Commissioning) (2,823) 2. Impact due to increase in variable costs (primarily due to increase in cost of coal and purchase of power from market) 2, Impact due to other costs (primarily due to pension liabilities of APGENCO Stations) True Up for FY

20 It can be observed that the deviation due to variable cost is nearly negated by the reduction in fixed costs and the major factor contributing to the True-Up for FY is the pension liabilities of APGENCO Stations (around Rs.825 Crs.) The true-up value pertaining to each licensee can be computed on the basis of the power purchased by the licensee with respect to the total power purchased during the year. The following table, shows the break-up for the true-up pertaining to H1 and H2 of FY : True-up for True-up Required (Rs. Cr.) APEPDCL 324 APSPDCL 644 State

21

22 App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. App. Act. Dev. Generating Station Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Total FY 16 APGENCO Thermal 1 VTPS I (35.76) (7.99) (76.64) (25.27) (18.68) (30.36) (90.48) (77.62) , , (239.54) 2 VTPS II VTPS III VTPS IV (19.04) (5.18) (24.52) (18.96) (14.68) (24.94) (96.33) (4.50) (78.20) (77.87) (29.19) , , (357.43) 5 RTPP Stage-I (23.75) (12.70) (28.21) (31.58) (32.45) (35.30) (27.25) (2.06) , RTPP Stage-II (13.37) (14.99) (22.56) (30.28) (23.53) , RTPP Stage-III (5.88) (16.76) (9.10) (17.74) (13.81) Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal (430.85) (364.38) (121.95) (167.82) (298.08) (246.83) (60.47) (242.73) (25.72) (253.04) (177.63) (54.44) 10, , (5,879.51) 9 Damodaram Sanjeevaiah Thermal (267.40) (438.29) (392.19) (445.21) (258.94) (238.10) (293.00) (293.52) (415.57) (71.95) (67.76) (253.66) (3,435.58) Differential Cost between Scheduled 10 Energy & Energy as per RATIO Total APGENCO Thermal 1, (796.05) 1, (758.19) 1, (578.35) 1, (435.19) 1, (453.19) 1, (208.98) 1, , (48.82) 1, (714.58) 1, (613.96) 1, , (576.66) 1, , (416.78) 1, , (96.03) 18, , (5,696.80) TSGENCO KTPS A (3.86) (19.41) (24.78) (61.01) (15.97) (11.24) (17.33) (46.27) (14.51) (33.07) (14.01) 2, , (253.44) 12 KTPS B KTPS C KTPS Stage V (TS) (6.48) (18.25) (20.99) (43.50) (38.00) , , (1.44) 15 RTS B (TS) (15.90) (5.66) (1.68) (3.68) (2.71) (1.90) (0.93) (0.93) (0.35) (3.21) (30.13) 16 Kakatiya Thermal Power Plant Stage I ( (15.65) (3.26) (5.40) (8.40) (103.58) , , (9.87) 17 KTPS Stage VI (TS) (87.87) (6.18) , , Total TSGENCO (0.90) (136.47) (4.04) (29.93) (26.31) (136.92) , , (200.58) APGENCO Hydel 18 MACHKUND PH AP Share (1.04) (0.09) TUNGBHADRA PH AP Share (0.29) 0.24 (0.60) (0.84) 0.07 (0.26) (0.33) (0.01) (1.27) (0.14) (5.11) 4.75 (0.32) (5.07) Upper Sileru Power House (AP) (4.12) (13.27) (7.18) (9.38) (2.39) Lower Sileru Power House (AP) , , DONKARAYI (AP) (1.54) (0.32) (4.83) (3.79) (4.96) Srisailam Right Bank Power House (AP (58.84) (3.79) (0.48) (15.94) (0.41) (30.45) (283.84) (259.96) (125.66) (26.14) (28.42) (0.37) (66.46) (46.56) (77.13) 1, (1,023.18) 24 Ramagiri Wind Mills (AP) Nagarjunasagar Right Bank Power Hou 1.67 (0.04) (1.71) - (0.04) (0.04) - (0.04) (0.04) 0.61 (0.04) (0.65) (0.04) (13.91) (0.04) (26.28) (0.04) (32.13) (0.03) (28.71) (0.03) (20.94) (0.03) (13.29) 6.92 (0.03) (6.95) 4.28 (0.04) (4.32) (0.45) (148.98) 26 Penna Ahobilam (AP) 0.03 (0.02) (0.05) 0.09 (0.02) (0.11) 0.08 (0.02) (0.10) 0.09 (0.02) (0.11) (1.23) (0.56) (0.02) (0.29) 0.18 (0.02) (0.20) MINI HYDEL(Chettipeta)-AP (0.08) - (0.00) (0.00) (0.05) (0.09) (0.11) (0.16) (0.02) (0.13) (0.23) (0.07) (0.68) 28 Nagarjunasagar Tail Pond Dam Power (3.96) (1.98) (4.95) (10.89) (17.82) (20.79) (18.81) (24.75) (24.75) (24.75) (14.85) (4.95) (173.25) Total APGENCO Hydel (22.76) (15.32) (0.65) (292.91) (306.62) (164.97) (65.65) (55.45) (74.33) (42.18) (76.68) 3, , (1,083.15) APGENCO + TSGENCO 2, , (805.90) 2, , (724.72) 2, , (730.14) 2, , (439.88) 2, , (743.57) 2, , (545.53) 2, , (170.54) 2, , (708.47) 2, , (695.71) 2, , (787.91) 2, , (456.53) 2, , (171.63) 28, , (6,980.53) Central Generating Stations 29 NTPC (SR)-Ramagundam Stage1& (15.14) (40.46) (9.72) (8.26) (1.36) (39.18) (18.90) (25.65) (19.90) , , (104.79) 30 NTPC (SR)-Ramagundam Stage (3.11) (17.22) (2.56) (5.47) (8.53) (5.45) (5.58) (7.32) (0.75) Farakka Kahalgaon Talcher - Stage Talcher Stage (1.07) (15.02) (13.25) (0.33) (6.67) (10.82) (9.46) (17.47) (8.09) (0.16) 1, , (52.33) 35 Others NLC Stage-I (4.57) (1.14) (1.97) NLC Stage-II (6.33) (8.47) (6.50) (1.80) (6.45) NPC-MAPS (0.33) NPC-Kaiga unit I&ii NPC-Kaiga unit III&IV (16.56) (34.01) (33.11) (34.01) (34.01) (33.11) (34.01) (33.11) (34.01) (34.01) (31.91) (34.01) (385.87) 41 NTPC Simhadri Stage I (16.25) (61.23) (11.56) (7.89) (91.13) (11.00) (24.87) , , NTPC Simhadri Stage II (11.35) (34.77) (6.26) (1.68) (5.45) (25.77) , , Bundled power under JVNSM Vallur Thermal Power Plant (4.33) (0.35) (13.04) (7.93) (3.14) (12.03) (1.03) (10.10) (17.44) (8.54) (18.44) (91.92) 45 Kudigi Tuticorin (31.79) (63.58) (52.47) (51.16) (43.60) (36.29) (26.40) (17.22) (15.63) (3.56) (333.22) 47 NPC KUDANKULAM (2.31) (7.45) (21.06) (21.06) (21.06) (21.06) (21.06) (21.06) (21.06) (13.71) (151.18) TOTAL CGS 1, , , , , (204.71) 1, , , (34.82) , (73.08) 1, (115.92) 1, , (55.30) 1, , (57.53) 1, , , , APGPCL 48 APGPCL I - Allocated capacity (0.31) (0.24) (0.24) (0.46) (0.81) (0.89) (0.85) (0.50) (0.56) (3.90) 49 APGPCL II - Allocated capacity (0.85) (0.59) (2.73) (2.93) (2.42) (1.28) (0.94) Total APGPCL (1.17) (0.83) (3.55) (3.82) (3.27) (1.78) (1.50) IPPs-Gas 50 GVK (7.21) (13.83) Spectrum (18.83) (8.95) (8.00) (3.86) (4.24) (6.08) (19.53) (30.12) (33.95) (28.46) (28.45) (12.45) (202.92) 52 Kondapalli (Gas) (40.02) (37.16) (34.55) (36.59) (24.46) (21.94) (27.02) (30.81) (30.70) (110.04) 53 BSES (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (17.98) (161.82) 54 GVK Extension Vemagiri Gautami Konaseema GMR Rajahmundry Energy ltd.(768 MW Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd (1108 MW TOTAL IPPS (41.91) (74.36) , , , NCE 60 NCE - Bio-Mass NCE - Bagasse (1.83) (2.45) (0.08) (11.36) (9.82) (6.58) (4.39) (3.10) (12.47) 62 NCE - Municipal Waste to Energy (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.06) (0.83) 63 NCE - Industrial Waste based power pr NCE - Wind Power (115.82) (206.27) (11.69) (77.82) (188.19) (154.00) , , (227.87) 65 NCE - Mini Hydel (0.57) (3.71) (5.55) (4.23) (8.31) (19.30) (17.60) (7.97) (43.01) 66 NCE - NCL Energy Ltd (0.62) (0.62) (0.62) (0.15) (0.36) (0.62) (0.62) (0.62) NCE - Solar Projects (SPD) (21.90) (22.29) (26.03) (31.27) (29.75) (29.06) (30.57) (28.11) (31.83) (24.52) (26.26) (23.48) (325.07) 68 NCE- Solar Parks NCE-Others NVVNL Bundled Power -SOLAR NTPC Ramagundam Solar Power TOTAL NCE (135.00) (227.58) (37.03) (107.38) (226.91) (198.23) , , (441.67) IPPs-Others 72 Srivathsa (Exclusive EPDCL) (3.69) (3.69) (3.69) (3.69) (3.69) (3.69) (1.96) (20.68) 73 LVS Power (Exclusive EPDCL) Vishakapatnam Steel Plant NB Ferro Alloys Sponge Iron Heavy Water Plant Kesoram Essar steels Sri Luxmi Tulasi Corporate Power (MT) KSK Mahanadi (MT) (3.67) (26.29) (0.01) (10.09) (32.57) (31.48) (4.16) 1, , Hinduja (280.05) (280.05) (280.05) (560.10) (560.10) (560.10) (560.10) (560.10) (513.02) (396.43) (316.80) (560.10) 5, (5,426.99) 84 Thermal Power Tech (68.08) (32.75) (6.55) , , RVK Energy Pvt Ltd (IPP upto ) TOTAL OTHERS (321.47) (277.07) (146.36) (532.31) (549.70) (547.54) (514.18) (540.26) (468.71) (399.41) (319.83) (519.08) 8, , (5,135.92) MARKET 86 PTC RCL and Short-Term Sources(IG Wells, APSPDCL APEPDCL UI (4.49) (4.49) (22.85) (22.85) - (2.13) (2.13) - (25.29) (25.29) Other Short Term Sources , , Reactive Charges Bi-lateral Sales( PTC etc.) UI Sales Pool Transaction ( Sales) Jhajjar NTPC UI Charges - (8.34) (8.34) - (7.51) (7.51) - (7.65) (7.65) - (11.87) (11.87) - (3.99) (3.99) - (0.63) (0.63) - (9.48) (9.48) - (7.64) (7.64) - (5.43) (5.43) - (8.80) (8.80) - (14.45) (14.45) - (8.22) (8.22) - (94.01) (94.01) 98 D-D Purchases/Sales TOTAL MARKET , , TOTAL (From All Sources) 4, , (366.76) 4, , (79.80) 4, , (676.90) 4, , (139.71) 4, , (495.64) 4, , (613.06) 4, , , , (627.87) 4, , (611.15) 4, , (737.59) 4, , (433.69) 4, , (24.63) 54, , (4,710.86)