Investment Approval of APDRP/Substation Schemes …uperc.org/App_File/...04Dated27thSept2004-pdf852011120547PM.pdf · Investment Approval of APDRP/Substation Schemes ... 33/11 kV

Investment Approval of APDRP/Substation Schemes for FY 2003-04

1

Commission’s Order

on

Investment Approval of Distribution APDRP schemes above Rs.1.0 crore For FY 2003-04

Before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Lucknow

Dated this 27 th day of September 2004

Present

1. Shri Vijoy Kumar Chairman 2. Shri P.N.Pathak Member 3. Shri R.D.Gupta Member

In the Matter of

INVESTMENT APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION SCHEMES FY 2003-04

Respondent: U.P Power Corporation Ltd, Luck now.

***********************


2

Order

1. The functions of the Commission, as laid down in Section 11 of the U.P.Electricity

Reforms Act 1999, “Functions of Commission” clause no. 10(e) required the Commission,

inter alia, to regulate the efficient and economical working of Licensees and to regulate

the assets of the Electricity Industry in the State.

2. The clause 10.3 of the Transmission /Supply license requires that the licensee shall

make an application to Commission for prior approval by Commission for schemes

involving major investments as per the procedure which the Commission may specify

from time to time, and requires the Licensee not to make any investment except in an

economical and efficient manner and in accordance with the approved investment plan.

The condition further provides that the proposed investment plan for the forthcoming

financial year shall be submitted by the Licensee to the Commission along with the

expected revenues from charges calculation, for approval of the Commission. This has

been made a pre requisite for undertaking any investments by the licensee.

3. As per clause no.86, ‘Functions of the Commission’ of Electricity Act 2003 enforced from

10th June 2003, read with clause 185(3), ‘Repeal and Savings’, the provisions of UP

Electricity Reforms Act, 1999 if not inconsistent with the Electricity Act 2003, shall

continue to apply to the state, otherwise till 9th June 2004.

4. In the light of the cl no 2 above, the licensee submits schemes and the Commission

examines the projects over Rs 1.0 crore for which information is submitted .The licensee

in it’s submission has to prove to the satisfaction of the Commission that:

a) There is a need for the major investment in the Transmission/distribution system,

which the licensee proposes to undertake,

b) The licensee has examined the economic, technical, system, and environmental

aspects of all viable alternatives to the proposal for investing in or acquiring new

transmission/distribution system assets to meet such needs, and

c) The licensee has invited and finalized tenders for procurement of equipments,

material and / or services relating to such major investment, in accordance with the

transparent tendering procedure as may be specified by the Commission from time

to time.

5. The Commission prior to according approval examines these proposals for distribution

schemes above Rs.1.0 Crore, after ensuring that the licensee has provided information

with supporting documents about physical and financial aspects of the proposals for the

Commission to take a view while finalizing the ARR for ensuing year and according prior

approval to the schemes.


3

6. As per the license conditions, the Investment Programme for a particular year has to be

filed along with the ARR filing, during November of the preceding year for getting

approval of the Commission.

7. In the ARR filing made by UPPCL for 2003-04, UPPCL had furnished the detailed Capital

Investment Programme after continuous follow up by the Commission, during March

2003, and some clarifications and deficiencies were submitted with a delay of more than

six months.

8. In its Tariff Order for FY 2003-04, the Commission had considered projects of value less

than Rs 1 crore, as well as the projects of value above Rs 1 crore for which some

information has been submitted for inclusion in the FY 04 tariff computations, though

ideally it would have liked to only include projects that were approved by it. Projects of

value greater than Rs 1 crore for which supporting details were not submitted, were not

considered, hence not included.

9. The Commission provisionally approved these projects and indicated that it shall review

these projects to evaluate whether they meet the efficiency requirements as per the

License and the benefits justify the costs. If it was found that the projects have not been

incurred prudently, the Commission will not allow such expenditure to be passed through

in FY 05 tariffs. For the projects not adopted for tariff computations in FY 04 Order, the

Commission kept options open to considering these investment costs in the future,

provided adequate details were furnished and the project expenditure is found to be

consistent with the investment criteria. If such expenditure had already been incurred by

UPPCL, the Commission shall provide the interest costs for the same in future tariffs.

10. To examine the investment schemes submitted by UPPCL, the UPERC engaged the

services of reputed consultants, M/s Aakriti Info solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, who

examined these schemes from technical, financial and commercial aspects, and also

examined whether these schemes were prudent and optimum.

11. The consultants have interacted with the UPPCL, and after a series of meetings, final

recommendations were submitted to the Commission.Though, the UPPCL broadly

agreed on most of the suggestions, and also agreed to provide the revised cost estimates

when these investments are actually finalized, they, in principle also agreed to modify the

schemes as per the preliminary shortcoming’s that were informed to them. However, in

case of APDRP scheme for Shahjahanpur, UPPCL was unable to furnish clarifications to

the consultants that were asked for despite reasonable efforts of the consultant, and

neither any assurance was given to make modification in the scheme. For Muzaffarnagar

though the replies to shortcomings and clarifications that were asked for was provided,

and also agreed for modifications in the scheme, but UPPCL have not submitted the

revised project report incorporating the suggested modifications. In view of the above, the


4

final recommendations by the consultants remain the same as sought at the stage of

clarifications.

12. The deficiencies and gaps are highlighted throughout the text for both the APDRP

schemes at sl. no. I & II.

13. The Commission has to ensure that up gradation and augmentation of the network is

undertaken by the Distribution Licensees within a mandated time frame. In the present

matter, the UPPCL has to account for the information gaps on the basis of the

deficiencies highlighted in the comments/analysis of the APDRP report for Shahjahanpur

already discussed and also submit revised cost estimates for both the projects.

14. Commission directs UPPCL to submit revised reports within 3 months and confirm that

the deficiencies as pointed out have been duly accounted for. Subject to these reports

Commission accords approval to these APDRP projects seeing the state interest and

overall benefit of consumers that these schemes envisage to provide in a mandated time

frame, and if at a later date, it was found that the directions given above have not been

followed, the Commission will not allow such expenditure to be passed through in future

tariffs.

I. Comments on the Project report for Strengthening and Improvement of Sub-Transmission and Distribution Network of Electricity Distribution–II Shahjahanpur and replacement of meters in Shahjahanpur Circle for an estimated cost of Rs. 44.48 crores.

The project report covers

1. Strengthening and Improvement of Sub-Transmission and Distribution Network of

Shahjahanpur town falling under Electricity Distribution –II Shahjahanpur

2. 100% metering of system and consumers in Shahjahanpur circle

The Model Project Report and Details of Cost and Works analysis (DCWA) have been examined

and certain details/ clarifications were required, but not provided to Commission which are given

below.

I. 33/11 and 66/11 kV Sub-stations 1. New 33/11 kV Sub-stations at Hathora, Abdullaganj, Kakra, Nigohi

2. Augmentation of 33/11 kV Sub-stations at Govindganj and Bahadurganj

3. Change of voltage level at Rosa from 66/11 to 33/11

The following clarifications were asked for:


5

1. It has been proposed to construct 1*10 MVA, 33/11 kV Sub-station at Hathora. It may be

clarified whether 2*5 MVA could be installed. Two transformers would increase reliability

of supply.

2. It has been proposed to augment 33/11 kV Bahadurganj from 1*5 to 1*10 MVA. It may

be clarified whether it could be augmented to 2*5 MVA. Two transformers would

increase reliability of supply.

3. The existing capacity of 15 MVA at 33 level is being increased to 60 MVA, indicating a

net increase of 45 MVA. The capacity of back up system of Pania 220/132/33 kV Sub-

station at 33 kV level is only 20 MVA with a proposal to add 20 MVA. The backup at

132/33 kV level will be inadequate to meet the demand at 33 kV level.

4. It has been proposed to scrap 66 kV level at Rosa. Shahjahanpur circle has 1431.57 km

of 66 kV line and 6 No. 66 kV sub-stations. Justification for scrapping this level in Rosa

alone when 66 kV level is being maintained at 132/66/11 kV Shahjahanpur may be

furnished. The back up Transmission at 132/33 is inadequate and converting 66 kV to

33 kV would add further burden on the backup system at 33 KV level at Pania, making it

more inadequate.

It may be indicated whether there are any proposals in some other schemes to

strengthen the back up system.

II. 33 kV lines New line on panther 220 kV S/S to Rosa to Hathora - 26 km

New line on panther Hathora to Bahadur ganj S/ S. - 7km

New line on panther Hathora to Rosa S/ stn.. - 7 km

New line on Dog 220 kV Sub-stn Pania to Abdullaganj - 44 Km

Nigohi and Kakra

Re-conductoring of 33 kV Govind ganj line by Panther - 10 km

The following clarifications was asked for and not provided:

1. Three independent circuits are proposed from 220 kV Sub-station Pania- one to Hathora

and then to Rosa , one to Rosa and one to Abdullaganj . Further two independent

circuits from 220 kV Pania are proposed to Nigohi and Kakra . In this proposal

Abdullaganj, Kakra, Nigohi Sub-stations have a single source feed.

It is felt that with lesser number of circuits an optimal plan could be drawn up to create a

ring around Shahjahanpur town with each 33/11 kV Substation being fed from two

different circuits. It would be desirable to look into the proposals for Sub-transmission link

lines to create an economical, reliable and optimal system.


6

It is suggested that 220kV Pania Substation be connected to Nigohi Road to Kakra to

Abdullaganj with Panther conductor. Further Abdullaganj could be connected to Hathora

or Rosa instead of a separate circuit.

2. The line lengths for the 33 kV link lines are different in the cost estimates, page 14,

single line diagram of the existing and proposed system (page 72), the geographical

map, and page 22, 23 of the model project report.

3. The Hathora to Bahadurganj link line is not indicated as a proposal in SLD on Page 72.

4. It has been proposed to reconductor 10 km line of 33 kv from 220kv Paina to Govindganj

whereas on page 22 of Model project report lengths are indicated as 12 km.

These discrepancies need to be corrected.

III. LT line Only 30 km of LT line is proposed whereas 93 new transformers of capacities 11, 250,

400 KVA are proposed. It may be confirmed that the line length will be adequate.

IV. Distribution transformers 1. It has been proposed to augment the distribution transformer capacity from 100 KVA to

250 KVA and 250 KVA to 400 KVA. If space is available then it is desirable to install

another transformer instead of augmentation. In fact it would be better to go for small

capacity Distribution transformers by extending 11 kV line to introduce the concept of

HVDS.

2. If augmentation is necessary at certain places then the transformers released from

augmentation should be utilized at other places where new transformers are proposed to

be installed. Or credit for released transformer/ equipment should be given.

V Meters 1. It has been indicated in Table 1 (Cost Report) that there are 61,634 no. of urban

consumers on page 3 of the project report. On page 9 of the project report it has been

indicated that 31900 are proposed in PFC scheme thereby indicating a requirement of

29734 electronic meters for urban areas. Whereas the requirement of meters for urban

area has been indicated as 54667. This needs to be clarified.

2. In Annex 7 requirement of electronic meters for 11 kV feeders is 9 whereas 60 CT’s and

11 No. PTs have been provided for. This needs to be clarified. If the CT/PT requirement

is for replacement of damaged/ defective equipment it should be covered under

revamping of 33/11 kV sub-station.


7

VI. 11 kV Capacitors 1. Same rating of 11 kV capacitor bank of 2.4 MVAR has been proposed on 33/11 kV sub-

stations of capacity 1*5 MVA and 2*5MVA. The rating should match with the capacity of

the Sub-station. Further the capacitors should be of automatic switched type to prevent

over compensation in off peak periods.

VII Cost estimates

In all the cost estimates, the overhead charges viz transportation, contingency etc have

been taken on land and civil works also. The overhead charges should be taken on

material cost only.

Escalation of costs if any may be indicated.

The modifications required in each cost estimate are indicated below:

1. 1 phase meter 1. In cost schedule contingencies T&P and establishment charges have been taken on, the

installation charge, excise duty and trade tax. These are to be taken on cost of material

only.

2. Credit for replaced meters may be given

2. 3 Phase Tri Vector meter

1. The cost of set of cables and box are on the higher side. For DT’s, the LT leads of

transformer are used as basic primary cable.

2. Credit for replaced meters may be given Cost of sundries is on the higher side

3. 33/11 kV 2*5 MVA 1. The cost of busbar complete with structure has been taken as Rs.11 .26 lakhs, which is

abnormally high.

2. The cost of 63 KVA transformer has been taken as Rs.44850, which is the cost of 100

KVA transformer.

3. Sundries have been taken as 3 lakhs, which is on the higher side.

4. Cost of laying of cables (item 18) has been taken as Rs 200/ per metre whereas in the

cost estimate for 1*5 MVA it has been taken as Rs. 100 per metre

5. Provision for 3*120 sq mm XLPE cable 360 metres has been made. It appears that these

cables are part of the outgoing 11 kV feeders. Cost of cable and accessories should not

be included in the cost of Sub-station.

6. Cost of laying of cable should normally be covered under erection charges which are

taken in transportation and erection charges of 10%


8

4. 33/11 KV 1*5 MVA 1. The size of auxiliary transformer is 100KVA whereas 63 KVA should be sufficient.






5. 33/11 KV 5+10 MVA 1. The cost of line isolator (item 4) has been taken as Rs. 29600 whereas it has been taken

as Rs. 20600 in other cost estimates.

2. The cost of laying of 11 kV cable has been taken as Rs. 270 per metre whereas this has

been taken as Rs. 61 per metre in other cost estimates.

3. The cost of 11 kV incoming switchgear has been taken as Rs. 3.41 lakhs and for out

going Rs. 2.29 lakhs whereas same has been taken as Rs. 2.64 lakhs and Rs. 2.16

lakhs on page 47 of the project report






6. 33/11 kV 1*10 MVA 1. Provision for 3*185 sq mm XLPE cable 240 metres has been made. It appears that these



2. Sundries have been taken as 3 lakhs, which is on the higher side.



7. 33 kV line with panther conductor on rail pole 1. The cost of pole has been taken as Rs. 2300/ each (page 25) whereas amount has been

indicated as Rs. 23000. Further the cost of Rs. 23000/ per rail pole is on the higher side.

The cost of rail pole on page 30 of the report has been taken as Rs. 14242/ each

2. Cost of sundries is Rs. 10000 per km is on higher side

8. 33 kV line with dog conductor on Steel Tubular pole


9

1. Cost of dog conductor is on the higher side


9. D/P structure for river crossing 1. The cost of 11 kV disc insulator has been taken as Rs. 255 each whereas the same has

been taken as Rs. 245 on page 28 and 36 of the report

2. The cost of nuts and bolts has been taken as Rs 35 per kg . In page 29 it has been taken

as Rs. 50 per Kg. It should be taken uniformly.

3. A provision for erection and concreting charges has been taken in the cost estimate of

DP. The cost of erection has again been taken in transportation and erection charges of

the 33, 11 kV lines and spur lines . This charge should be taken once only.

10. 11 kV overhead spur line 1. The cost of Dog conductor is on the higher side.


11. Stay rod 1. A provision for erection and concreting charges has been taken in the cost estimate of

stay rod. The cost of erection has again been taken in transportation and erection

charges of the 33, 11 kV lines and s[pur lines . This charge should be taken once only. 12. 11 kV overhead line on STP with rabbit conductor Cost of sundries is Rs. 10000 per km is on higher side

13. Distribution transformers of 100, 250, 400 KVA 1. In the cost estimate for 100, 250,400 KVA Distribution Sub-station provisions for both

steel tubular poles as well as transformer plinth have been taken. Transformers of 100

and 250 KVA could easily be mounted on poles. The cost estimates should not include

plinth and fencing costs wherever they are pole mounted.

2. The requirement of cement bags has been taken as 10 bags for plinth , DP and LT

cubical box whereas cost of plinth has been taken separately. The requirement of 10

bags appears to be excessive.

3. The sizes of crimping and their requirement is not matching with the size of LT PVC

cables proposed in the cost estimates. The size of cables should be according to the

capacity of the transformer.

4. The quantities of 11 kV and LT cables should be taken according to the type of mounting

of the transformer (plinth/pole)


10

14. LT line 1. It has been proposed to use ST poles for LT lines. It is desirable to use PCC poles for

safety and durability.

2. In item 18 the concreting has been taken for 12 poles whereas poles are 20.

15. Revamping/ Renovation of 33/11 kV sub-station 1. The cost of battery charger has been taken as RS. 7000/ whereas on page 18 it has

been taken as Rs. 34,400.

2. Cost of overhauling of 5 MVA transformers has been taken as Rs. 1 lakh whereas the

same has been taken as 0.70 lakhs in APDRP report of Muzaffarnagar urban circle This

may be corrected.

3. The sundry items of Rs. 2 lakhs are on the higher side.

4. Cost of overhauling of transformer and renovation of building should not form part of

material cost for computation of overhead charges

5. Credit for released /dismantled material/ should be given

16. Revamping of 11/0.4 kV transformer Cost of plinth and fencing should not be a universal component for all the Distribution sub-

stations.

1. Cost of LT distribution Board is too high

2. Cost of 3.5 core 400 and 3.5 core 240 sq.mm cable has been taken as Rs. 700 and

rs.550 per metre whereas on page 62 same has been taken as Rs.680 and Rs.445

respectively.

17. Augmentation of 33/11 kV Sub-station from 1*5 to 1*10 MVA 1. Credit for released /dismantled material/ transformer should be given

2. The equipments already existing or covered under revamping/ renovation should not be

taken in this cost estimate.

3. The cost of capacitor bank has already been taken separately as cost of 11 kV

capacitors.

18. Reconductoring of 33 KV Dog line by Panther conductor 1. Cost of miscellaneous items as Rs. 15000 per km is on the higher side

2. Credit for released /dismantled material should be given

19. Reconductoring of 11 KV lines


11

1. Cost of miscellaneous items as Rs. 5000 per km is on the higher side


20. Augmentation of Distribution Sub-stations from 100 to 250 KVA 1. Credit for released /dismantled material/ transformer should be given

21. Reconductoring of LT line Credit for released /dismantled material should be given

22. 11 kV capacitor bank 2.1 MVAR 1. The cost of capacitor banks been taken as Rs. 2.6 lakhs which appears to be on higher

side

2. The capacity proposed in the project report is 2.4 MVAR whereas cost of 2.1 MVAR has

been taken.

3. The overhead charges should not be taken on laying of cable, foundation and grouting

charges. In fact laying, fixing, jointing are already apart of erection charges taken as

overheads.

23. Laying of XLPE cables (3*120 sq.mm 3*185 sq.mm, 3*300sq.mm) 1. The provision of 10 No. jointing kits per km is very much on the higher side since cables

upto 3*70 sq.mm are available in drum lengths ranging from 300 to 500 metres and

3*120 to 3*300 sq.mm are available in drum lengths of 200 to 300 metres .

2. A provision for cost of laying of cable laying and jointing has been taken in the cost

estimate, then cost of erection has been taken in transportation and erection charges.

This needs clarification .

24. Increasing capacity of 11/.4 KV transformer from 100 to 250 KVA and 250 to 400 KVA 1. Provision of plinth has been made whereas in most of the cases, plinth would already

exist and the same could be utilized.

2. In case of pole mounting the provision of plinth may not be required.

3. Cost of sundries is on higher side.

25. On line billing centers

The installation of on line billing center and training is generally on a turn key basis. As

such the provision for contingencies and establishment charges may not be required.

VII . General


12

1. The T&D losses indicated in the project report are for the year 2001-2002. These may be

indicated for the years 2002-03 and 2003-2004.

2. The physical and financial progress of the scheme till March 2004 may be indicated

3. It would be desirable to carry out Consumer indexing and mapping. Provision for the

same may be kept.

4. The scheme is to be implemented with 25% grant from GOI, 25% loan from GOI and

balance 50% from own funds or loan from financial institutions. It may be indicated

whether funds have been made available by GOI. It may also be clarified whether

counterpart funding from PFC/ REC has been tied up (along with schedule for release of

fund if tied up).

5. The status of implementation of meter scheme funded by PFC may be indicated

6. The load growth in the area taken for deciding the proposals has not been indicated. The

proposals should be adequate to meet the load growth for 2-3 years. It may be confirmed

that the proposals shall be adequate.

7. It may be indicated whether any system studies have been conducted to decide the

proposals for Strengthening of the Sub-Transmission and Distribution system

8. In the cost benefit analysis pay back period has to be worked out.

II. Comments on the Project report for Strengthening and Improvement of Sub-Transmission and Distribution Network of Electricity Urban Distribution circle Muzzafarnagar for an estimated cost of Rs. 58.68 crores and additional proposal for Rs. 3.24 crores The project report covers

1. Strengthening and Improvement of Sub-Transmission and Distribution Network of

Electricity Urban Distribution circle Muzzafarnagar.

2. 100% metering of system and consumers in Electricity Urban Distribution circle

Muzzafarnagar circle

The Model project and Details of Cost and Works analysis (DCWA) have been examined and

certain details/ clarifications are required which are given below.

I 33/11 kV Sub-stations 1. The geographical map indicating position of 220, 132 and 33 kV substations and

interconnections/ link lines along with lengths may be furnished.

2. The transformation capacity at 132/33 kV Sub-station Bhopa Road as indicated on

Annex I and those indicated in Single Line diagram are inconsistent. These may be

clarified.


13

3. The back up Transmission system at 220 kV Sub-station at Nara and 132/33 kV Sub-

station at Bhopa Road is proposed to be augmented (page 1 of DCWA). The progress of

these schemes may be indicated. It may also be ensured that this will be adequate

4. The 33/11 kV Sub-stations at Mimla Road, Town hall Meerut Road , Gandhi Colony ,

Bhopa Road , Jansath Road are going to have a single source of supply . While

planning it is necessary to ensure that as far as possible each Sub-station should have

two sources of supply, preferably from two different sources.

5. The 33/11 kV Sub-stations are proposed to be constructed at Meerut Road Tehsil,

Mimala Road and Bhopa Road are proposed with one transformer each. Two

transformers provide better reliability of supply. Justification for provision of one

transformer may be given.

6. The associated line for 33/11 kV Sub-station at Town hall, Bhopa road and Numayash

camp are within 3 km. The justification for putting up a substation very near to the

existing/proposed sub-station may be given. It would be better to have these Sub-

stations nearer to the load centers or consider the possibility of augmenting the capacity

of existing/proposed Sub-stations.

II. 33 kV lines 1. The interconnections for all the 33 kV Substations are proposed on Dog conductor.

Appropriate conductor size considering the loading may be taken

2. The cost estimates include reconductoring of 7 km line Rabbit to Dog. . In the details of

interconnections in Annex IV of the project report no interconnection is on Rabbit

conductor. I/C I&II to 66 kV Sub-station are raccoon conductor. The length of the 2 I/C

lines is 16.05 in Annex IV whereas on page 55 of the DCWA these are indicated as 4.0

km.

3. .Similarly in Annex IV the inter connection between 220 kV Sub-station at Nara and 33

kV Sub-station at Mahaveer Chowk is 11.06 km on Dog/ raccoon whereas on page 55

of DCWA it is indicated ass 3.0 km Rabbit to dog .

4. In the main cost estimate cost has been taken for reconductoring of 33 kV Rabbit line to dog

whereas the costs are for reconductoring of dog line with Panther conductor.

5. The peak loads on some of the 33 kV lines as indicated in Annex IV are very high as

compared to the existing conductor size. Reconductoring may be proposed where the

loading is very high and load is not being diverted to other interconnections.

6. It would be desirable to look into the proposals for Sub-transmission system –

Substations & link lines to create an economical, reliable and optimal system.


14

III. 11 KV line 1. A provision for 77.8 km of 11 KV line on rabbit conductor has been made in the cost

estimates whereas as per schedule on page 26 and 27 it works out to only 39.1 km. This may be clarified.

IV. LT line

1. Provision for new LT line has not been made whereas 179 No. new distribution

transformers of capacity 100, 250 and 400 KVA are being added

V. Distribution transformers 1. It has been proposed to augment the distribution transformer capacity from 100 KVA to

250 KVA and 250 KVA to 400 KVA. If space is available then it is desirable to install

another transformer instead of augmentation. In fact it would be better to go for small

capacity Distribution transformers by extending 11 kV line to introduce the concept of

HVDS

2. If augmentation is necessary at certain places then the transformers released from

augmentation should be utilized at other places where new transformers are proposed

to be installed. Or credit for released transformer/ equipment should be given.

VI. Meters 1. On page No.6 (of DCWA) cost estimates, the requirement of consumer meters has been

indicated as 64015 whereas the requirement of meters indicated in Annex III-II of the

project report

2. It has been indicated that all the industrial and water works consumers are metered. It

may be confirmed that electronic meters have been installed on these consumers.

3. It has been indicated that 421 employees and 491 PTW consumers are unmetered.

Provision of meters may be made for these consumers also to ensure proper energy

accounting.

VII. 11 kV Capacitors 1. Same rating of 11 kV capacitor bank of 2.4 MVAR has been proposed on 33/11 kV sub-

stations of different ratings. The rating should match with the capacity of the Sub-station.

Further the capacitors should be of automatic switched type to prevent over

compensation in off peak periods.


15

VIII. Cost estimates 1. In all the cost estimates, the overhead charges viz transportation, contingency etc have

been taken on land and civil works also. The overhead charges should be taken on

material cost only.

2. Escalation of costs if any may be indicated.

The modifications required in each cost estimate are indicated below:

1. 33/11 kV Sub-station with LILO 1. Provision for four sets of LA has been made whereas only 3 sets are required.




3. Cost of land appears to be on higher side.



2. 33/11 kV 2*5 MVA 1. Cost of LA per set is taken as 3.20 lakhs whereas on page 15 it has been taken as

Rs..30,000/-.

2. Sundries should not include cost of cable boxes which has already been taken as a

separate item.




4. Cost of land appears to be on higher side.



3. 33 kV line on STP pole

1. Cost of dog conductor is on the higher side


4. Laying of 33 kV (3*300sq.mm, 3*400 sq.mm ) under ground cable 1. The provision of 10 No. jointing kits per km is very much on the higher side since cables

3*300 to 3*400 sq.mm are available in drum lengths of 200 to 300 metres

2. Provision of sundries @ Rs. 10,000 per km is not required.


16

3. A provision for cost of laying of cable has been taken in the cost estimate, then cost of

erection has been taken in transportation and erection charges. This needs clarification

5. Laying of 11 kV XLPE cables (3*35sqmm, 3*50 sq.mm 3*70 sq.mm, 3*120 sq.mm 3*185 sq.mm, 3*300sq.mm, 3*400sq.mm )

1. The provision of 10 No. jointing kits per km is very much on the higher side since cables

upto 3*70 sq mm are available in drum lengths ranging from 300 to 500 metres and

3*120 to 3*300 sq.mm are available in drum lengths of 200 to 300 metres .

2. A provision for cost of laying of cable and jointing has been taken in the cost estimate,

then cost of erection has been taken in transportation and erection charges. This needs

clarification

6. 11 kv line on 11m STP with ACSR Rabbit conductor 1. Cost of sundries is Rs. 10000 per km is on higher side

7. Distribution transformers of 250, 400,630 KVA 1. In the cost estimate for 250 KVA Distribution Sub-station provisions for both steel tubular

poles as well as transformer plinth have been taken. Transformers of 250 KVA could

easily be mounted on poles. The cost estimates should not include plinth and fencing

costs wherever transformers are pole mounted.

2. The requirement of cement bags has been taken as 10 bags for plinth, DP and LT

cubical box whereas cost of plinth has been taken separately. The requirement of 10

bags appears to be excessive.

3. The sizes of crimping and their requirement is not matching with the size of LT PVC

cables proposed in the cost estimates. The size of cables should be according to the

capacity of the transformer.

4. The quantities of 11 kV and LT cables should be taken according to the type of mounting

of the transformer (plinth/pole)

8. 11 kV capacitor bank 2.1 MVAR 1. The cost of sundries of Rs. 5000 is on higher side.

2. The overhead charges should not be taken on laying of cable, foundation and grouting

charges. In fact laying, fixing, jointing are already apart of erection charges taken as

overheads.


17

9. Augmentation of 33/11 kV Sub-station from 1*5 MVA to 10 MVA 1. The cost of 10 MVA transformers has been taken as 28.45 lakhs whereas the same has

been taken as 25 lakhs in cost estimates on page 2 of Additional proposal project report.

2. Sundries have been taken as 30,000 which are on the higher side.

10. Reconductoring of 33 kV line on 13 m rail from Dog to panther 1. Cost of miscellaneous items as Rs. 15000 per km is on the higher side


11. Reconductoring of 11 KV lines

1. Cost of miscellaneous items as Rs. 5000 per km is on the higher side.


12. Reconductoring of LT line 1. Credit for released /dismantled material should be given

13. Cost of refurbishment of existing 33/11 kV sub-stations 1. The cost of battery charger has been taken as RS. 4000/ whereas on page 17 it has

been taken as Rs. 34,400.

2. Cost of overhauling of transformer and renovation of building should not form part of

material cost for computation of overhead charges

3. Cost of capacitor bank has been taken as Rs. 6.89 lakhs whereas the same has been

worked out as Rs. 6.489 lakhs on page 52


14. Revamping of 11/0.4 kV transformers 1. Cost of plinth and fencing should not be a universal component for all the Distribution

sub-stations. (Some could be pole mounted). Further existing plinth could also be utilized 2. Cost of LT cubical box is too high


4. Credit for dismantled material may be given

15. Increasing capacity of 11/.4 KV transformer from 250 to400 KVA and 400 to 630 KVA

1. Provision of plinth has been made whereas in most of the case, plinth would already

exist and the same could be utilized.



18

16. On line billing centers

1. The installation of on line billing center and training is generally on a turn key basis. As

such the provision for contingencies and establishment charges may not be required.

17. Communication and control system 1. Overhead charges are not applicable on Break down van and communication system.

18. Miscellaneous items 1. A provision of load limiters including complaint booths has been made for Rs. 100 lakhs.

The cost estimate may be detailed.

2. A provision of Rs. 39 lakhs has been made for project formulations eg. Data collection

etc. Further a provision of down loading system data at the cost of Rs. 51 lakhs has also

been made. This needs clarification.

3. In the cost for consumer indexing cost per consumer has been taken as Rs.170 which is

exorbitant. IX Additional proposal for Muzzafarnagar town

Replacement of existing 66/11 by 33/11 kV transformers of 12.5+2*5 MVA to 2*10 +5 MVA 1. Credit for dismantled material may be given in all the cost estimates.

2. Cost of consumer indexing and mobile vans with communication facilities has already

been taken in the main proposal. These need not be taken again

3. The additional proposal provides for scrapping of 66 kV level at 66 kV Sub-station at

Suzru. However the cost of revamping the sub-station has been taken in Annex-VI.

There appears to be duplication of works in the two schemes. It needs to be ensured

that there is no duplication of works in the two scheme proposals.

4. The cost benefit analysis has to be worked out in totality for the main as well as

additional proposal

5. It as felt that the labour charges are very high. It may be indicated whether additional

proposal has been approved for funding under APDRP by MOP

X General 1. The T&D losses indicated in the project report are for the year 2001-2002. These may be

indicated for the years 2002-03 and 2003-2004.

2. The physical and financial progress of the scheme till March 2004 may be indicated

3. The scheme is to be implemented with 25% grant from GOI, 25% loan from GOI and

balance 50% from own funds or loan from financial institutions. It may be indicated

whether funds have been made available by GOI. It may also be clarified whether


19

counterpart funding from PFC/ REC has been tied up (along with schedule for release of

fund if tied up).

4. The load grow in the area has not been indicated. The proposals should be adequate to

meet the load growth for 2-3 years. It may be confirmed that the proposals shall be

adequate.

5. It may be indicated whether any system studies have been conducted to decide the

proposals for Strengthening of the Sub-Transmission and Distribution system’

III. Approval of balance 8 No. Distribution Schemes for installation of 33/11 kV Sub-stations by UPPCL in continuation of UPERC order vide letter no UPERC/2004/3825 dt. 12.8.2004

Regarding the approval by Commission for pending substation schemes highlighted in the table

below, out of these eight substations (one S/S does not require approval) seven S/S’s are

approved against the revised cost and remarks highlighted against each.

S.no. Scheme no. Name of scheme District Observations/ Recommendations

1. 7. 33/11 kV Sub-station Katra Gonda Scheme is technically viable

Commercial benefits likely to accrue are less. Investment approval of Rs. 115.00 lakhs considering the social and technical benefits is accorded.

2. 9. 33/11 kV Sub-station Azampur Scheme approved for

J.P Nagar 115.75 lakhs only. 3. 10. 33/11 kV Sub-station Nauranga

Kanpur Investment approved for Rs.105.17 lakhs only.

4. 11. 33/11 kV Sub-station Raj Bhawan Lucknow

Scheme is technically viable Approved for an Investment of Rs. 227.73 lakhs only considering the exigency of work.

5. 13 . 33/11 kV Sub-station Sherpur Muzzafarnagar Cost reduced from Rs. 106.29 lakhs to

98.183 lakhs. The scheme does not require Investment approval by UPERC.UPPCL advised to complete the scheme within the indicated amount

6. 15. 33/11 kV Sub-station Dubiha Ghazipur Approved for an Investment of Rs.

114.87 lakhs only. 7. 16. 33/11 kV Sub-station Zamania


20

Ghazipur Approved for an Investment of Rs. 114.99 lakhs only.

8. 18. 33/11 kV Sub-station Khairaberi, Ghazipur Cost reduced from Rs. 192.87 lakhs to 92.87 lakhs. The scheme does not require Investment approval by UPERC.UPPCL is advised to complete the scheme within the indicated amount. However it is reiterated that, the following general directions for all future submissions of any

distribution scheme shall be followed by UPPCL/Discoms, unless modified or revoked: 1.The distribution licensee shall make the investments in a prudent manner being guided by the duty to build, maintain, and operate an efficient, co-coordinated, and economical Distribution System in the State.

2. The Distribution Licensee shall submit to the Commission Investment Plans as a part of the business

plan, giving details of investment schemes to be undertaken during the concerned period for the approval of the Commission. The Distribution Licensee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that:

(a) there is a need for such investments in Distribution System contained in the Investment Plan; (b) the Distribution Licensee has examined the economic, technical, system and environmental

aspects of all viable alternatives to the proposal for investing in or acquiring new Distribution System assets to meet such need.

3. The Distribution Licensee shall intimate, by the end of the first quarter of each financial year

(a) the annual investment plan with details of investment schemes to be carried out during the

financial year and (b) the progress made in implementing the annual investment plan of the previous financial year with

the comparison of actual implementation vis-à-vis the plan as approved by the Commission for the concerned period.

4. The Distribution Licensee shall not undertake schemes involving Major Investments, not covered under

the Investment Plan approved by the Commission without the prior approval of the Commission, and for such approval the Distribution Licensee shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission the factors mentioned above.

5. The Distribution Licensee shall invite and finalise tenders for procurement of equipment, material and/or

services relating to major investment, in accordance with a transparent tendering procedure as may be directed by the Commission.

6. For the purpose of this clause (4), the term “Major Investment” means any planned investment in or acquisition of Distribution facilities, the cost of which, when aggregated with all other investments or acquisitions (if any) forming part of the same overall transaction, equals or exceeds an amount contained in the special conditions applicable to the Distribution Licensee or other decided by the Commission from time to time by a general or special order.

7. The Distribution licensee shall be entitled to make Investment in the Distribution Business other than

those covered under clauses 2 and 4 above but for the purposes of considering such Investment while determining the tariff, the Distribution Licensee shall satisfy the commission that the Investment was required for the Distribution Business and such investment was made in an efficient, co-ordinated and economical manner.

8 The Distribution Licensee shall submit to the Commission along with the “Expected Revenue Calculations” filed under section 62 of the Act, the highlights of the annual investment plan consisting of


21

the schemes approved by the Commission, schemes submitted before the Commission for approval and all schemes not requiring prior approval of the Commission planned for the ensuing financial year and shall make investment in the said financial year in accordance with the said investment plan. Provided that if any unforeseen contingencies required reallocation of funds within the schemes listed in the annual investment plan, the Distribution Licensee may do so to the extent such reallocation in respect of individual projects does not exceed an amount decided by Commission in the Special conditions applicable to the Distribution Licensee shall give due intimation of such relocation to the Commission within 7 days of making the investment. Provided also that if on account of unforeseen circumstances the Distribution Licensee is required to make investment in a scheme, which does not find a place in the annual investment plan, the Distribution Licensee may do so if the same is not a major investment and subject to the conditions contained in clause 4 above.”

(II) Submission requirements of Commission: Following information should be submitted by UPPCL/discoms about physical and financial

aspects of the proposals, with supporting documents, provided by licensee, to take view while

according approval to the plan/scheme and finalizing the ARR for ensuing year.

1. The date-wise list of schemes, which were approved by Planning Commission in

VI/VII/VIII/IX/X Plan but could not be taken up so far, should be submitted. Fresh

endorsement with justification is required to be submitted in the Commission for any of these

schemes proposed to be taken up now.

2. Physical Progress (%) in Sub-station, Dist. Line, Others if any.

3. Target date of completion.

4. Original Cost with date and Revised Cost with date.

5. Means of Finance including loan sanctioned and equity.

6. Source of own/balance funds.

7. Govt. guarantee for the loan.

8. Financial Progress (%) in Sub-station, Dist. Line, and expenditure proposed.

9. The cost benefit analysis carried out in the schemes.

10. Reports of System planning studies, load flow analysis, if required in accordance to

Commission’s Guidelines for Load Forecasts and Resource Plans.

11. UPPCL/discoms to identify the works and submit the proposals by November of preceding

year.

12. All the new works have to be discussed with the concerned Discoms and their consent is

obtained for such works.

13. UPPCL/Discoms must standardize the formats for submissions to Commission, and also

have a budgetary cost data bank, updated periodically.

14. The expected loss reduction and improvement in voltage condition should be worked out.

The study should highlight the following:

a. Justification for taking up new works.


22

b. Areas of poor voltage/system reliability where immediate action for strengthening the

system is required.

c. Proposals to mitigate the condition in item (b)

d. Any other remarks on the system inadequacy and proposals for strengthening the

same.

e. The single line diagrams, maps wherever required shall be enclosed with the DPR.

Commission would like that special attention of UPPCL/Discoms is desired for conforming to

the national agenda of distribution reforms. Commission therefore recommends in general, the

execution of APDRP project’s with the following technicalities as given below:

(i) Consequent to Introduction of commercial accounting practices, setting up of online

MIS that ensure higher customer satisfaction and system stability, besides time-of

the day metering.

(ii) The 11 KV feeders be treated as the profit center. The problems generally occur due

to the poor HT-LT ratio, metering and billing inefficiencies and lack of IT

applications. Also the systems are unreliable and suffer from erratic voltages. At

least 5% technical losses occur at this stage and theft is prevalent. The licensee

should make efforts involving capacity building and technical up gradation is

suggested at this level.

(iii) 100% metering (tamper proof), installation of capacitors at all levels, computerized

billing and configuration and reconfiguration of feeder lines and distribution

transformers (DT’s) has already been directed by Commission.

(iv) The licensee shall focus on installing energy meters on the DT’s and at the

consumer premises, as well as static meters on all 11KV-outgoing feeders and for

HT consumers on such feeders. (v) Strong emphasis has been placed on 100% metering under the APDRP feeder

meters at the 11KV levels and the consumer metering including the agricultural

consumption. With multi functional features such as, measurement of active and

reactive and apparent energy; competition of current and maximum demand; multi

tariff programming; time of day metering; detection and recording of tampering; peak

load and maximum demand violation; load survey, harmonics measurements would

bring favorable results for the utility like increased revenues due to reduced theft and

better measurement of energy use. The operating costs of utility shall reduce

considerably due to few maintenance and inspection visits. For this technological

advancements have to be used like remote meter reading, prepaid meters, etc. The

Licensee is again directed to encourage use of pre-paid meters, as well meters

having remote meter reading facility.


23

(vi) Since the contracts are not structured for testing the quality of meters before

contracts are awarded and mere confirmation that the product complies with the

specifications being considered enough, the sub standard devices finds the way in

the utilities. Commission directs that only reputed companies be approached by

licensee for their meter requirements, by inspecting the sub standard products at the

quotation stage.

(vii) The Commission is considering framing a policy wherein a neutral technical agency

approves all meters after conducting reliability studies for the next 10-20 years and

carryout the tests at the time of tendering. Since the meters are the final link between

utility and consumer, that provides critical information on the load patterns, tampering

and helps in demand side as well as revenue management, which forms the basis of

the revenue, the above measures assumes significant importance. The Commission

directs the licensee that it should also put in place independent third-party meter

testing arrangements, and should submit a proposal for Commission’s approval in

this regard.

(viii) The licensee shall in a phased manner, adopt the meter reading, bill printing and

distribution to consumers, through computerized billing system-using hand held

devices, capable of downloading all the data recorded in the electronic meters, and

integrated with the dot matrix printers for field printing, and ledgers scanners along

with the magnetic card reader that facilitates complete switch over to a paper less

system.

(ix) The discom shall also attempt to computerize load management at the LT level using

IT based applications. Outages due to the overloading of the network have been

identified as an area for improvement by creating new 33/11KV S/Ss and installing

11KV lines. The licensee is directed to make efforts to install substation automation

equipment in a phased manner.

(x) The Commission again reiterates use of High voltage distribution system (HVDS)

lines in an attempt to increase the HT-LT ratio.

(xi) Transformer capacitors to reduce voltage fluctuations and Static LT switched

capacitors in the LT distribution system to reduce the T&D losses, should be

installed.

(xii) It is very important to take up IT applications that include GISs based mapping,

consumer indexing, asset coding, computerized billing in revenue management

matters, and computerized sub station data has to be promoted in all circles to

enable the utility to remotely monitor, coordinate, control and operate distribution

components, equipments and devices in real time from remote locations with the

acquisition of data for analysis and planning for a central location.


24

(xiii) The consumer indexing in all the circles would unable circle to increase consumer

coverage by regularizing the unregistered/unauthorized connections. This would also

facilitate auditing at the feeder level with the total energy metered of all HT/LT

consumers on that feeder. The licensee is directed to pay special emphasis on

consumer indexing and mapping in a time bound manner.

(xiv) The use of SCADA is critical for distribution to manage load, maintain quality, detect

theft and tampering, and thus reduce system losses. The biggest benefit is the

centralization of data collection. This in turn, leads to improvements in voltage

profile, reduction in power losses and improvement in reliability, detection of faults

and restoration of services. The licensee is directed that a time bound programme for

implementation of SCADA and data management system should be got approved

from the Commission keeping in view the techno economic considerations.

UPPCL/discoms therefore should therefore immediately put in place necessary administrative

structures and procedures to avail of APDRP funds to strengthen its systems and network.

R.D.Gupta P.N.Pathak Vijoy Kumar

Member Member Chairman

Dated: 27th September 2004

Documents

Investment Approval of APDRP/Substation Schemes …uperc.org/App_File/...04Dated27thSept2004-pdf852011120547PM.pdf · Investment Approval of APDRP/Substation Schemes ... 33/11 kV