In The Matter of

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
Review Petition No. 7/RP/2014
in
Petition No. 263/MP/2012
Coram:
Shri Gireesh B. Pradhan, Chairperson
Shri M. Deena Dayalan, Member
Shri A.K. Singhal, Member
Date of Hearing:
Date of order:
27.05.2014
24.12.2014
In the matter of
Review of order dated 19.12.2013 in Petition No. 263/MP/2012 pertaining to maintaining

and ensuring Integrated Secured Grid Operation in Southern Region in terms of
Regulation 5.2 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid
Code) Regulations, 2010.
And
In the matter of
State Load Despatch Centre
APTRANSCO, Vidyut Soudh,
Hyderabad-500 082
Vs.
Review Petitioner
1. Southern Regional Load Despatch Centre

29 Race Course Cross Road,
Bangalore-560 009
2. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd
Cauvery Bhawan, Bangalore-560 009,
Karnataka
3. Kerala State Electricity Board
Vaiduthi Bhavanam, Pattom,
Trivandrum-695 005, Kerala
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

Page 1 of 33
4. TANTRANSCO,
114, Anna Salai-Chennai-600 002,
Tamil Nadu
5. Secretary, Power
Electricity Department of Puducherry,
Beach Road, Puducherry-605 001
6. Southern Regional Power Committee
29 Race Course Cross Road,
Bangalore-560 009
Respondents
The following were present:

Shri S. Vallinayagam, Advocate, APTRANSCO
Shri Y. Balasubramanyam, APTRANSCO
Shri S. Sai Ram, APTRANSCO
Shri V. Suresh, SRLDC
Shri Meka Ramakrishna, SRPC
Ms. Jyoti Prasad, POSOCO
ORDER
The Review Petitioner, State Load Despatch Centre, APTRANSCO has filed this
Review Petition seeking review of the Commission`s order dated 19.12.2013 in Petition
No. 263/MP/2012 wherein the Commission inter alia had directed the constituents of
Southern Region including the Review Petitioner to identify more feeders for installation
of UFR and df/dt relays to ensure relief as decided by SRPC from time to time and
submit the details to Southern Regional Power Committee. The constituents were also
directed to submit compliance report duly certified by Southern Regional Load Despatch
Centre (SRLDC) and Southern Regional Power Committee (SRPC) indicating
implementation of quantum of relief by AUFR and proper functioning of df/dt relays
within one month from the issue of the order.

Page 2 of 33
2.
The Review Petitioner has submitted that determination of targeted quantum on
the basis of average values will make implementation of the direction of the
Commission impossible. However, if the targeted quantum is determined on the basis of
the maximum demand conditions, implementation of direction of the Commission is
feasible.
3.
The Review Petitioner has submitted that in compliance with the Commission`s
direction dated 19.12.2013, compliance report indicating implementation of quantum of

relief by AUFR in the format prescribed by SRLDC for certification by SRLDC and
SRPC has been
submitted
on 12.1.2014. The petitioner has submitted that
the
following pro-active steps were taken by it as per Regulations 5.2.(n) and 5.4.2 (e)
of the Grid Code.
(a)
The recommendation of SRPC dated 1.10.2012 for revision of the existing
settings of UFRs in stage-I, II and III was implemented on 1.11.2012, based on

the recommendation of the enquiry Committee on grid failure in NEW grid.
(b)
Immediate action has been taken for increasing the quantum of load relief
by providing 18 Nos. of additional feeders for Stage-I, Stage-II and Stage-III of

UFR scheme.
(c)
SRPC, vide its letter No. CE/SRPC/SE-I/2013/9169-81, dated 21.8.2013
communicated the revised Automatic Under Frequency Relay settings and

quantum of relief as per National Power Committee decision. The existing and
the recommended settings for Under Frequency Relays are indicated as under:
Page 3 of 33
Existing
Stage
Frequency
Stage-I
Stage-II
Stage-III
Stage-IV
49.0 Hz
48.8 Hz.
48.6 Hz.
---
Revised
settings
recommended by SRPC
Load Relief Frequency
Load Relief
MW
MW
887
1256
1424
--
49.2Hz
49.0 Hz
48.8 Hz.
48.6 Hz.
809
812
822
825
The first two stages of revised frequency settings are to be adopted by

7.9.2013 and the balance stages have to be implemented by 15.10.2013.
However APTRANSCO has adopted the revised settings of all the four
stages by 7.9.2013.
(d)
In terms of the Commissions order dated 19.12.2013, additional feeders
have been identified and proposed for enhancing the quantum of load relief of
UFRs of four stages.
(e)
The periodical testing of the UFRs is also conducted once in six months
by the field MRT Wing for ensuring the healthiness of the relays which was also
regularly intimated to SRPC and SRLDC. The same was also inspected by
SRPC for ensuring its effective functioning. All information relating to number of
feeders and related information is with SRLDC and is updated periodically.
(f)
The quantum of load relief targeted needs review, considering the ground
realities of compliance and realization. Till date the targeted quantum of load
relief was carried out based on the maximum demand conditions and any
additional quantum needed was reviewed and accordingly, additional feeders
were provided to the maximum extent possible.
Page 4 of 33
(g)
At present all the available 132 kV feeders including power transformers
were taken into consideration for implementation of the various protective

scheme under (i) UFRs (ii) df/dt (iii) Talcher-Kolar SPS (iv) Kudankulam SPS
and Ramagundam Islanding Scheme. The Quantum of proposed loads under the
various schemes are detailed below:
S.No. Name of the Schemes
1
2
3
4.
5
(h)
Quantum of the
Loads identified
in MW
UFRs (Under Stages-I,II,III,IV)
3567
df/dt (under Stage-A&B)
2349
Talcher-Kolar
SPS
(Stage- 515
I,II&III)
Kudankulam SPS
230
Ramagundam Islanding Scheme 2000
Total
8661
As the loads on the feeders are dynamic and are subjected to variations
depending on the availability of generation and demand the assertion of targeted

quantum always based on the average value on the feeder is practically not
feasible. It is to be appreciated that the constituents are having the obligation of
reliable supply to the consumers, apart from maintaining grid security. Further,
from the above table, all the radial 132kV feeders and the power transformers
feeding the rural and some of the urban areas are also included under various
schemes. There are number of frequent interruptions experienced by the
consumers, sequentially in the form of scheduled load relief, unscheduled load
relief, UFRs, df/dt and SPS. Therefore, the load of 8661 MW was included in the
form of defensive mechanisms.

Page 5 of 33
4.
Based on the above, the Review Petitioner has urged that the determination of
targeted quantum on the basis of average values is not possible and the impugned
order needs to be reviewed and modified. However, if the targeted quantum is
determined on the basis of the maximum demand conditions, compliance of
Commission`s direction is feasible. The Review Petitioner has submitted the demand
variation for the year 2013 as under:
Month
Max.
Demand
MW
Min.
Demand
MW
Jan
2013
11236
Feb
2013
11148
March
2013
11630
April
2013
11410
May
2013
11369
June
2013
10723
July
2013
10932
Aug
2013
11717
Sep
2013
11887
Oct
2013
11914
Nov
2013
10591
Dec
2013
11365
7445
7064
8706
7101
7239
6731
7064
7859
8291
5945
7420
7772
Therefore, under minimum demand conditions it is very much evident that the targeted
quantum could not be maintained in spite of inclusion of the whole AP system.
5.
In view of the above, the Review Petitioner has prayed to review and modify
the order dated 19.12.2013 for modifying the targeted quantum of relief.
6.
The Review Petition was heard on 18.3.2014 after notice to the respondents.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner submitted as
under:
(a)
realities of compliance and realization. Till date the targeted quantum of load
relief was carried out based on the maximum demand conditions. Any additional
Page 6 of 33
quantum needed was reviewed and accordingly, additional feeders were

provided to the maximum extent possible.
(b)
At present all the available 132 kV feeders were taken into consideration
for implementation of various protective schemes and the total quantum of the
loads identified under the various schemes is 8661 MW. On the other hand, as
per the impugned order, the declared load relief considering the feeders which
are available for monitoring at SRLDC SCADA is only 3796 MW. Therefore, the
system will operate when the relief quantum has been fixed not on average but
on maximum demand of the feeder.
(c)
As the loads on the feeders are dynamic and are subjected to variations
depending on the availability of generation and demand the assertion of targeted

quantum based always on the average value on the feeder is practically not
feasible.
(d)
Under the minimum demand conditions in December 2013 at 7772 MW,
the system will not operate under the load relief of 8661 MW. Therefore, the load
relief has to be fixed on the maximum demand of the feeder.
7. In response, the representative of SRLDC submitted as under:

(a)
The claim of the petitioner that the quantum identified for relief through
protection system in the State of AP is about 8661 MW is not correct as the

quantum identified for relief through AUFR is much less. The petitioner has
conveniently mentioned the total quantum of all types of protection systems like
Page 7 of 33
SPS, Islanding Scheme, AUFR and df/dt but highlights only AUFR and df/dt
quantum as required quantum. However, the purposes of different types of
protection schemes and triggering factors are different.
(b)
The quantum considered for relief through AUFR and df/dt scheme is
same as that of approved value decided by Protection Co-ordination Committee

(PCC) of SRPC during the year 2012. Only changes suggested by National
Power Committee) (NPC) at present is dividing the same quantum into four
stages of operation instead of three stages earlier.
(c)
Since year 2012, the petitioner declared that the PCC approved quantum
has been connected for relief through AUFR and df/dt protection scheme.
However, it is consistently observed that relief realized during operation of AUFR
and df/dt operation was 10%- 30% of expected relief. Despite regular discussion
and analysis in PCC/OCC, there was no improvement in the situation and
thereby SRLDC was forced to insist on SLDCs to extend the feeder-wise SCADA
details to SRLDC and monitor the load available in the identified feeders for
relief. From the monitoring, it has been confirmed that the load available for relief
at any point of time is of the order of 30% - 50% only.
(d)
With regard to feeder-wise discrepancy or less load available, SLDC is
responsible to monitor and ensure the availability of declared quantum through

appropriate feeders. As it is not happening, SRLDC was forced to monitor and
Page 8 of 33
point out the deficiency. SLDC should not transfer its responsibility to SRLDC.
Further the petitioner is required to make necessary arrangement to get field data
from all the identified feeders to SLDC SCADA and onward transmission to
SRLDC SCADA.
(e)
With regard to computation of quantum of relief, the present average
demand for the month of February 2014 was about 90% of the maximum
demand and even the ratio between minimum and maximum demand was about
85%. Accordingly, it is evident that the load available for relief shall not be less
than 85% of approved value at any point of time. Meeting this criteria at least to
nearest value will be possible only if the average value of feeder is considered for
computation.
(f)
With regard to the petitioner contention that all the radial feeders in the
State of AP have been used for various types of protection schemes and thereby
it is unable to identify additional feeders, it is clarified that AUFR and df/dt is the
last line of defence, life saving protection scheme of the grid and thereby the
petitioner shall not have any reservation in identifying city/urban feeders for such
protection scheme. At least for stage-IV, operation of such feeders is to be
considered as an instance which will be a rare occasion.
8.
Southern Regional Power Committed (SRPC), vide Record of Proceedings for
the hearing dated 18.3.2014 was directed to clarify how the targets relief quantum has

Page 9 of 33
been fixed and the feasibility of provided relief is ascertain. SRPC vide its affidavit dated
24.4.2014 has submitted the information called for.
Submission of SRPC dated 24.4.2014
9.
The petitioner has implemented 3373 MW quantum relief under AUFR and df/dt
against requirement of 5747 MW. 146 MW additional load has been identified and were
yet to be implemented. Further, 2229 MW of loads are yet to be identified and
implemented. Thus there is deficit of 41.33% in relief to be provided.
10.
Relief and settings to be provided by each of the SR constituent was worked out
based on the average of the ratios of energy consumption for 2012-13 and maximum
demand met during 2012-13.
11.
Only 7208 MW (excluding 2000 MW for Ramgundam Islanding scheme) of loads
have been identified for Andhra Pradesh under various protection schemes by
OCC/PCC Sub-Committees of SRPC. Out of 5747 MW of UFR and df/dt recommended
by SRPC, Andhra Pradesh has implemented 3372 MW. SCADA system of SRLDC
monitors 2469 MW and the relief visible was around 2160 MW (11.2.2014 to 20.2.2014)
and 2115 MW (21.2.2014 to 28.2.2014). The relief was of the order of 86-87%. The
value was in range of only 34-75% and 51-74% for the period of 1.11.2013 to
30.11.2013 and 11.12.2013 to 20.12.2013 respectively. SR constituent generally meet
their peak demand in months of February/March each year. Even during peak time,
Andhra Pradesh was available to achieve only 86-87% of the declared relief.

Page 10 of 33
12.
Quantum of relief identified should be available at all times, whether peak or off
peak periods. In case maximum feeder loading is considered, then visible relief would
be much lesser than the desired relief. Maximum loading does not consider the pattern
of the feeder throughout the day while the average feeder loading considers the loading
pattern of the feeder throughout the day.
13.
Grid disturbance could occur anytime. Therefore, the constituents should be in a
position to provide necessary load relief irrespective of the time of occurrence (peak or
otherwise). This could occur during off peak hours also when the feeder loadings would
tend to be lower. All constituents should provide desired relief, especially since SR Grid
has been integrated with NEW Grid. There are load variations in a day due to time zone
effect. Considering this and all India view average feeder loading should only be
considered.
14.
It was informed by NLDC in SRPC meeting dated 15.3.2014 that there had been
no operation of UFR since October 2013 throughout India. In SR except for first stage of
49.2 Hz other UFR stages have not operated for a long period.
15.
During the year 2013-14, first stage of UFR had operated only in case of one
incident i.e. 7.6.2013. SRPC has submitted the details of relief provided by SR
Constituents as under:
States
Andhra Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
Tamil Nadu
Puducherry
Expected relief
MW at 49 Hz
882
589
214
772
22
in Relief obtained Relief Obtained

in MW
in %
202
23
281
48
100
47
393
51
18
82

Page 11 of 33
In that particular incidence, frequency had remained between 49.0 Hz and 48.8
Hz (II stage of UFR) for more than 4 minutes. The above relief could not bring the
frequency back to operating range. Any other grid incident during that period
could have led to major grid disturbance. It is noted that the Andhra Pradesh had
provided only about 23% of the expected relief.
16.
UFR w.r.t other protection schemes is a time tested and reliable last line of
defence. Other schemes are based on triggering of certain events while UFR protection
is geographically spread and independent to each other.
Reply by SRLDC
17.
SRLDC has filed its reply vide affidavit dated 1.5.2014. SRLDC has submitted
that quantum of load on individual feeder considered by the petitioner for computation
was instantaneous maximum value and not the average flow of the feeder. Thus, the
course of efforts indicated by the petitioner results only partial compliance of
the
Commission`s direction. SRLDC has further submitted as under:

(a)
realities of compliance and realization and that till date the targeted quantum of
load relief was carried out based on the maximum demand conditions. SRLDC
has clarified that the present average demand, for the month of February 2014
was about 90% of the maximum demand and even the ratio between maximum
and minimum demand was about 85%. Accordingly, it is evident that the load
Page 12 of 33
available for relief shall not be less than 85% of approved value at any point of
time. Meeting this criterion at least to nearest value will be possible only if the
average value of feeder is considered for computation. From January to February
2014, maximum demand varies between 11000MW-12000 MW while the
average demand varies between 10000 MW-10500 MW. The ratio between the
maximum demand to average demand was about 0.9 while the ratio between the
minimum demand to average demand was about 0.8 except on a holiday like
Sankaranthi (13.1.2014) etc., which may be seen in the graph below. Thus, it is
evident that the demand in the State fairly remains constant. Accordingly, the
quantum of load available for relief shall always be equal to the total finalized
quantum of SRPC, which is possible only if the average flow / load of the feeder
is considered for arriving the load relief quantum.
(b)
The maximum flow of different feeders occurs at different instances and
taking maximum of all feeders indirectly will mean that the load available for relief
will be far below the approved quantum. The value of total load available as a
sum of instantaneous flow of all the feeders mapped for monitoring through
SCADA for the AP system on a typical peak season (summer) day (say on
31.3.2014-Monday) based on minute wise data shown as under:

Page 13 of 33
(c)
SRLDC
has submitted that considering the average value would be
appropriate for ensuring the availability of declared load relief. It is also submitted
that the ratio between maximum and minimum power flow in the identified
feeders is very high, particularly in the States like Kerala. Accordingly, the
Commission`s direction dated 19.12.2013 in Petition No. 263/MP/2012 is
appropriate and does not require any review.
(d)
According to the Review Petitioner all the available 132kV feeders
including power transformers were taken into consideration for implementation of

the various protective scheme under (i) UFRs (ii) df/dt (ii) df/dt (iii) Talcher Kolar
SPS (IV) Kudankulam SPS (iv) Kudankulam SPS and Ramagundam Islanding
Scheme. The claim of the petitioner that the quantum identified for relief through
protection system in the State of AP is about 8661 MW while the required
quantum is far below is submission of partial fact only. The Review Petitioner
Page 14 of 33
conveniently mentions the total quantum of all type of protection systems like
SPS, AUFR and df/dt as well as include Islanding schemes but highlights only
AUFR and df/dt quantum as required quantum. However, the purposes of
different types of protection schemes are different and triggering factors are also
different. Further, loads/feeders identified for Islanding schemes are not meant
for tripping, instead they should remain in service even at worst contingency for
ensuring survival of Islanded portion of the grid. In addition, it may be noted that
the loads identified through Islanding Scheme are not just radial feeders but
consists of few sub-stations and ICTs and feeders matching the generation
level of the Island.
(e)
With respect to argument pertaining to all the radial feeders in the State of
AP having been used for various types of protection schemes and there by
inability to identify additional feeders, SRLDC has clarified that AUFR and df/dt
is the last line of defense, life saving protection scheme of the grid and thereby
the petitioner shall not have any reservation in identifying city/urban feeders for
such protection scheme. SRLDC has also suggested that at least for stage-IV of
operation, such feeders are to be considered as such instances of operation
would be a rare occasion.
18.
SRLDC has further submitted as under:

(a)
The quantum considered for relief through AUFR and df/dt scheme is
same as that of approved value of Protection Coordination Committee (PCC) of

SRPC during the year 2012. Only change suggested by NPC at present is
Page 15 of 33
dividing the same quantum into four stages of operation instead of three stages
earlier.
(b)
It is pertinent to mention that since year 2012, the petitioner declared that
the PCC approved quantum has been connected for relief through AUFR and
df/dt protection scheme. But it is consistently observed that relief realized during
operation of AUFR and df/dt operation was 10% - 30% of expected relief. Despite
regular discussion & analysis in PCC / OCC, there was no improvement in the
situation and thereby SRLDC was forced to insist the SLDCs to extend the
feeder-wise SCADA details to SRLDC and monitor the load available in the
identified feeders for relief. It has been confirmed from the monitoring that the
load available for relief at any point of time is of the order of 30%-50% only. The
matter of under protection with inadequate load for relief was regularly taken-up
with SRPC. Only then, the petitioner like constituent came out with details of their
discrepancy between declared quantum and actual quantum. With all these
efforts, during this peak demand period of summer, it is observed that the load
available for relief is about 75% of the declared quantum based on average flow.
(c)
The Review Petitioner indicated that SRLDC did not indicate the feeder-
wise discrepancy or less load available and compares only the total quantum, it
is clarified that it is the responsibility of the SLDC to monitor and ensure the
availability of declared quantum through appropriate feeders.

Page 16 of 33
19.
SRLDC has prayed as under:

(a)
Uphold the directions issued vide order dated 19.12.2013 in Petition No.
263/MP/2013;
(b)
Direct the petitioner to identify suitable number of feeders ensuring load
relief matching declared quantum on average load basis of the individual feeders;
and
(c)
Direct the petitioner to ensure availability of data of the identified feeders
in the SCADA system facilitating monitoring feeders/load available on regular

basis.
20.
During the course of hearing on 27.5.2014, learned counsel for the Review
Petitioner submitted as under:

(a)
The issue involved in the present review petition is that whether the
quantum of load relief for AUFR and df/dt relays shall be calculated at maximum
load or average load. The relief should be computed on the basis of average
which is also reflected in the reply filed by SRPC wherein SRPC has submitted
that average loading of the feeder is being compared with declared average
loading of the feeder and the review petitioner was able to achieve 86-87% of the
declared average relief.

Page 17 of 33
(b)
SRLDC in its reply has also admitted that during the peak demand period
of summer, the load available for relief is about 75% of declared quantum.
(d)
The quantum of load on feeder is dynamic depending upon the load and
generation scenarios. The recording of SRLDC is at fault and it is not able to see
the actual real-time relief provided. Therefore, inclusion of urban feeders in UFR,
df/dt load relief should not be insisted upon as it affects the consumers.
21.
In response, the representative of SRLDC submitted as under:

(a)
Learned counsel for the petitioner is mixing facts by stating that maximum
demand condition should be met for assessment of relief which in turn should be
computed on the basis of maximum load flowing on the feeder. In this regard it is
clarified that it is next to impossible that at any moment of time maximum flow on
the line would coincide with maximum load conditions and there has never been
a case in the past wherein the quantum of actual load relief has been equal to
the declared quantum.
(b)
Earlier, the flow declared by the petitioner was taken for granted.
However, now SRLDC has started monitoring the same and found that the flow
on the feeders is almost always less than the declared amount.
(c)
The petitioner`s contention that SRLDC is at fault for not being able to
monitor the accurate real time load relief, is wrong as SLDC is responsible to
extend the facility of monitoring to RLDC.

Page 18 of 33
(d)
Demand conditions of the year 2012 were considered for calculating
quantum of load relief to be made available but now the demand met has further
increased. Thus, ideally the quantum of relief should even be more. Therefore,
there is no case for petitioner to not to provide the relief decided on the basis of
the year 2012 conditions.
(e)
The petitioner has wrongly added the islanding schemes, while computing
the load relief as islanding scheme feeders are the ones that ought to remain in
service and not to be out during the contingency.
(f)
In a scenario where there is no RGMO and FGMO available, overloading
of critical lines and large change in load during changeover, any laxity in
providing relief form UFR and df/dt relays could prove highly detrimental, as they
are the last line of defense in system protection.
22.
The representative of SRLDC informed that Kerala has implemented 100% load
relief on the basis of average load and mapped around 50% on the SCADA system.
Karnataka has implemented 74% of the relief on basis of average and around 950 MW
of additional load has to be identified. Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have to identify
around 2000 MW and 750 MW, respectively more to comply with Commission's
direction.
23.
The Review Petitioner and the respondents, vide Record of Proceedings for the
hearing dated 27.5.2014, were directed to submit all the facts to SRPC and CEA and
analyze all the facts and issues raised by the Review Petitioner and the respondents
Page 19 of 33
and convene a meeting to discuss the same and finally recommend the basis on which
declared quantum should be calculated. SRPC and CEA were directed to submit their
reports/recommendations. NLDC was directed to submit the practices being followed by
other RLDCs. SRPC, CEA and NLDC have furnished the information called for which
are discussed in subsequent paras.
Submission of National Load Despatch Centre (NLDC)

24.
NLDC vide its affidavit dated 18.7.2014 has submitted that contingencies in the
system can take place at any point of time and adequate load relief must be there,
irrespective of time of occurrence of contingency. Effect of UFR and df/dt actuated loadshedding has to be affirmative and minimum load of feeders should be considered to
ensure that relief is adequate under all conditions Actual operation of UFR may take
place only under very large contingencies. It may be relevant to mention here that even
after tripping of all machines at Mundra UMPP generating 3800 MW on 12.3.2014, UFR
did not operate as frequency came down only by 0.6 Hz. to 49.3 Hz. (1st stage UFR
setting is 49.2 Hz.). Hence, the constituents may not have any apprehension regarding
frequent operation of UFR.
25.
NLDC has submitted the methodology followed in regions other than Southern
Region as under:
(a)
Eastern Region: At present maximum load in the feeders is being
considered for computation of load relief. In the OCC meetings held at ERPC,
the constituents of Eastern Region furnished the maximum relief obtainable by
UFR operation in their respective identified feeders, at different stages. ERLDC
Page 20 of 33
had insisted that the figures furnished by constituents should correspond to

average expected load. However, ER constituents did not agree to provide such
average relief through UFR operation. OCC has referred the issue to NPC for
their views.
(b)
North Eastern Region: In NER, maximum load in feeders is considered
for computation of load relief.
(c)
Northern Region: In the 83rd Operation Coordination Sub-committee
meeting held on 18.1.2013, it was mentioned that the actual expected load relief
from all installed UFR and df/dt may be on average basis. At present,
computation of load relief is being done on the basis of maximum load. However,
more load has been connected for UFR actuated load-shedding to ensure that at
any point of time in the day, total relief is not less than the desired quantum.
Chandigarh and J&K have not yet implemented UFR actuated load-shedding
scheme.
(d)
Western Region: Quantum of relief is calculated on average load basis.
DD and DNH are yet to implement UFR actuated load-shedding scheme.
26.
NLDC has requested the Commission to direct all constituents to (i) consider
minimum load in the feeders for computation of target relief through UFR and df/dt on
identified feeders and (ii) monitor of operation and relief by these UFR and df/dt relays,
UFRs and df/dt relays also be mapped on the SCADA system of each state so that they
can be monitored from SLDC/RLDC.
Page 21 of 33
Submission of Central Electricity Authority (CEA)

27.
Central Electricity Authority in its submission dated 8.9.2014 has submitted that
principal issue raised in this petition as to whether the quantum of load relief to be
provided by the States through automatic under-frequency relays and df/dt relays
should be calculated on the basis of maximum load or average load on the electricity
feeders. CEA has further submitted as under:
(a) Automatic Under-Frequency relays based Load Shedding (AUFLS) scheme is a
defence mechanism against grid collapse. It is designed to operate and shed load
connected to pre-identified radial feeders in four stages at very low grid frequencies
of 49.2, 49.0, 48.8 and 48.6 Hz. Such a low frequency in the grid is a rare
phenomenon and occurs only under severe contingencies, for example, during the
current year 2014-15 (April - July), minimum frequency of the all India grid has
always been above 49.2 Hz.
(b) As the grid security is of paramount importance. AUFLS Scheme is required to
be implemented by all the States faithfully to avoid grid collapse in case of any
severe contingency.
(c ) National Power Committee (NPC) had determined the quantum of load shedding
to be carried out in the grid in four stages of frequency taking into account, mainly
the power number and dependence of load on grid frequency, voltage and season.
For taking into account the impact of seasonal and daily variation, it was assumed
that average load on a feeder would be about 70% of its peak declared load during
an year. Accordingly, a factor of 1.43 (=1/0.7) apart from other factors was also used
Page 22 of 33
to arrive at the quantum of load-shedding. It is, however, learnt that the actual load
on the feeders where under-frequency relays have been installed by the States is
generally much less than 70% of the declared load relief.
28.
In view of the above, CEA has further submitted as under:

(a) The quantum of load to be shed under AUFLS Scheme has been worked out on
the basis of mainly the power number, which itself varies substantially from time to
time depending upon the load/generation configuration of the grid and thus, is an
estimated parameter. Therefore, if a contingency occurs at an instant when the
value of power number of the grid happens to be greater than the estimated value
the quantum of load as determined to be shed through AUFLS scheme on the basis
of the estimated value of power number, would fall short of requirement. In view of
this, each State needs to ensure that the load relief to be provided by it under the
AUFLS Scheme is mostly equivalent to or more than the quantum advised by the
RPC. States should have no hesitation in implementation of AUFLS Scheme
faithfully in view of the following:
(i) Excursion of frequency to be low as 49.2 Hz does not occur under
normal system operation. Subsequent to synchronous connection of
SR with the NEW grid on 31.12.2013, frequency stability has improved
further due to increased inertia, and chances of its dipping to a very
low level have further reduced. It will occur only in case of a severe
contingency which is a rare phenomenon, and therefore, load
shedding through AUFLS will also take place rarely.

Page 23 of 33
(ii)
It is in the interest of all power utilities to implement AUFLS
Scheme to prevent any contingency which has the potential to lead to

grid collapse as grid collapse causes colossal financial loss to all the
utilities connected to the grid.
(iii)
Implementation of AUFLS scheme is not going to create any
difficulty to the consumers of the State as AUFLS Scheme will operate

rarely.
(b) Keeping in view the above factors, it is considered prudent that all States provide
load-relief under AUFLS scheme at least equivalent to the quantum (intimated by the
respective RPC) on the basis of average load on the feeders (covered in the
scheme) during the previous year.
(c ) All feeders which are covered in the AUFLS scheme to provide load relief, should
be mapped for visibility through SCADA system at SLDC/RLDC. This would facilitate
monitoring of actual load relief at any instant and average load on the aforesaid
feeders by the SLDC/RLDC, who can advise suitable action to the State in case of
inadequate load relief.
Analysis and Decision
29.
We have heard the learned counsel and representatives of the parties. We have
perused the entire record
leading to issue of the order dated 19.12.2013 as also
submission of the parties in the present case.

Page 24 of 33
30. The Review Petitioner has filed this Review Petition on the ground that the
determination of targeted quantum on the basis of average value in the impugned
order requires review
by the Commission as it will make implementation of the
Commission`s direction impossible. The Review Petitioner has submitted that if the
targeted quantum is determined on the basis of the maximum demand conditions,
implementation of the Commission`s directions is feasible.
31.
The Grid Code provides for the load shedding in different contingencies in order
to maintain frequency within the stipulated band and network security. In this
Connection, Regulations 5.2 (n) and 5.4.2 (e) of the Grid Code are extracted as
under:
5.2 (n) All SEBS, distribution licensees / STUs shall provide automatic underfrequency and df/dt relays for load shedding in their respective systems, to arrest
frequency decline that could result in a collapse/disintegration of the grid, as per
the plan separately finalized by the concerned RPC and shall ensure its effective
application to prevent cascade tripping of generating units in case of any
contingency. All SEBs, distribution licensees, CTU STUs and SLDCs shall
ensure that the above under-frequency and df/dt load shedding/islanding
schemes are always functional. RLDC shall inform RPC Secretariat about
instances when the desired load relief is not obtained through these relays in real
time operation. The provisions regarding under frequency and df/dt relays of
relevant CEA Regulations shall be complied with. SLDC shall furnish monthly
report of UFR and df/dt relay operation in their respective system to the
respective RPC.
RPC Secretariat shall carry out periodic inspection of the under frequency relays
and maintain proper records of the inspection. RPC shall decide and intimate the
action required by SEB, distribution licensee and STUs to get required load relief
from Under Frequency and df/dt relays. All SEB, distribution licensee and STUs
shall abide by these decisions. RLDC shall keep a comparative record of
expected load relief and actual load relief obtained in Real time system
operation. A monthly report on expected load relief vis-a-vis actual load relief
shall be sent to the RPC and the CERC.

Page 25 of 33
5.4.2(e) In order to maintain the frequency within the stipulated band and
maintaining the network security, the interruptible loads shall be arranged
in four groups of loads, for scheduled power cuts/load shedding, loads for
unscheduled load shedding, loads to be shed through under frequency
relays/ df/dt relays and loads to be shed under any System Protection
Scheme identified at the RPC level. These loads shall be grouped in such
a manner , that there is no overlapping between different Groups of loads.
In case of certain contingencies and/or threat to system security, the
RLDC may direct any SLDC/ SEB/distribution licensee or bulk consumer
connected to the ISTS to decrease drawal of its control area by a certain
quantum. Such directions shall immediately be acted upon. SLDC shall
send compliance report immediately after compliance of these directions
to RLDC."
As per the above provisions, RPC in a region has been allowed to carry out periodic
inspection of the Under Frequency relays and decide and intimate the action required
to be taken by SEB, distribution licensee and STUs to get the required load relief for the
Under Frequency relays and df/dt relays.
32.
The Enquiry Committee constituted by Ministry of Power to analyze the causes of
disturbances and to suggest measures to avoid recurrence of such disturbance in future

had submitted its detailed report on 16.8.2012. The quantum of relief required through
AUFR and df/dt operation from each constituent's control area, during contingencies
was reviewed and discussed from time to time in the Protection Co-ordination
Committee (PCC) meetings and Operation Co-ordination Committee (OCC) meetings of
SRPC. All the constituents furnished the feeder-wise details of loads that are identified
and connected with AUFR and df/dt relays in their control area in compliance of
Regulation 5.4.2 (e) of the Grid Code matching the quantum agreed in the SRPC Board
meeting held 1.6.2012. Though the SR constituents furnished the feeder-wise details,
during the real time operation on the occasions of contingencies, the actual relief
Page 26 of 33
realized was far below the declared quantum. During such instances, the SR system
frequency excursion was at critical level. The matter was taken up in every Protection
Co-ordination Committee (PCC) meetings and Operation Co-ordination Committee
(OCC) meetings SRPC and all the constituents were asked to ensure availability of
adequate relief as declared by them. In view of consistent under-performance of AUFR
and df/df in the Southern Region, SRLDC began feeder-wise monitoring of the
earmarked feeders through SCADA system on continuous basis with effect from
23.9.2012. It was observed that the flow on many such identified feeders was very
much lower than the declared quantum of relief from the respective feeder. As a result,
available load relief for safeguarding system security during contingencies through
AUFR and df/df of each control area was about 20%-50% of the declared quantum. The
same was reported by SRLDC to the secretariat of Southern Regional Power
Committee (SRPC) periodically. The issue of non-availability of adequate loads in the
identified feeders was regularly taken-up in the Operation Co-ordination Committee
(OCC) meetings of SRPC as well as PCC and TCC meetings of SRPC. All the
constituents were asked to identify further feeders giving realistic load available for relief
through AUFR and df/dt for meeting the system contingencies
33.
SRLDC filed Petition No. 263/MP/2012 for seeking inter-alia directions to all the
STUs/SLDC in the Southern Region to ensure identifying and connecting the feeders
with AUFR and df/dt relays that provide availability of declared quantum of relief at any
point of time so as to take care of contingency, if any. The Commission after hearing

Page 27 of 33
all the parties including the Review Petitioner issued the following direction vide order
dated 19.12.2014:
13.
We have heard the parties and perused the pleadings. We are in agreement with
the petitioner that there is a need to review and estimate the actual load on the feeders
and the constituents should consider average load in the feeders for computation of
target relief on identified feeders. As sufficient load relief has not been achieved, the
respondents are directed to identify more feeders for installation of UFR and df/dt relays
and submit the details to SRPC.
14.
We would like to emphasize that no complacency shall be accepted for ensuring
safety and security of the Grid. Also according to Enquiry Committee constituted by the
Ministry of Power, the response from generators and operation of defense mechanism
like Under Frequency and df/dt based load shedding and special protection schemes
should be ensured in accordance with provisions of the Grid Code so that Grid can be
saved in case of contingencies. Further, as the SR Grid is going to be integrated with
NEW Grid, urgent action by the respondents is all the more essential.
* *
16.
The matter of increasing AUFR relief and implementation of df/dt settings have
been discussed at various Forums of SRPC. In the special TCC meeting held on
21.8.2013 the State-wise quantum of relief was firmed-up as in table below and was
decided to be implemented by all constituents by 15.10.2013:
Constituent
Andhra
Pradesh
Karnataka
Kerala
Tamil-Nadu
Puducherry
Total
49.2
809 MW
576 MW
204 MW
740 MW
21 MW
2350 MW
Frequency Setting for Trip (in Hz)

49.0
48.8
48.6
812 MW
822 MW
825 MW
578 MW
205 MW
744 MW
21 MW
2360 MW
586 MW
208 MW
753 MW
21 MW
2390 MW
588 MW
209 MW
756 MW
22 MW
2400
17.
All SR constituents are directed to identify the additional feeders and install UFR,
df/dt relays to ensure the relief as decided by SRPC from time to time. We direct all
constituents to submit compliance report duly certified by SRLDC and SRPC of
implementation of quantum of relief by AUFR as per table above and proper functioning
of df/dt relays within one month of issuing this order. We also make it clear that failure in
this regard will amount to non-compliance of the directions of this Commission and
render the constituent liable for proceedings under Section 142 of the Electricity Act,
2003 and other relevant provisions, against the Heads of defaulting entities.

Page 28 of 33
34.
The Review Petitioner has submitted that all the available 132 kV feeders
including power transformer were taken into consideration for implementation of the
various protective scheme under UFRs, df/dt, TalcherKolar SPS, Kundankulam SPS
and Ramagundam Islanding Scheme and the quantum of proposed loads under the
various schemes were identified as 8661 MW. The petitioner has submitted the load of
8661 MW was included in the form of defensive mechanism. The petitioner has given
the demand variation for the year 2013 and has submitted that the under minimum
demand conditions, the targeted quantum on the basis of average value could not be
maintained inspite of inclusion on the whole AP system. Accordingly, the petitioner has
submitted that the targeted quantum should be decided on maximum demand
conditions.
35.
The UFR and df/dt are defence mechanisms of the system. With narrowing of
frequency range 49.9-50.05 Hz, under normal conditions these relays would not
operate. However in case of contingency, sufficient load relief is required as decided at
RPC level. Under the Grid Code, responsibility has been assigned to SRPC to decide
the frequency setting for the purpose of load relief from UFR and df/dt relays. The
matter was discussed in various forums of SPRC and in the Special TCC meeting held
on 21.8.2013 and the State-wise quantum of relief was firmed up to be implemented by
the constituents by 15.10.2013 which have been extracted in para 16 of the impugned
order. The Commission vide para 17 of the impugned order directed all SR constituents
to identify the additional feeders and install UFR and df/dt relays to ensure relief as

Page 29 of 33
decided by SRPC from time to time. The Review Petitioner has sought review of the
said frequency setting decided by SRPC.
36.
The Commission has the power to review its order in one of the three grounds,
namely, error apparent in the face of record, discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which after due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be
produced by the Review Petitioner when the order was made, and due to any sufficient
reasons.
In our view, the case of the petitioner is not covered under either error
apparent on the face of record or discovery of new and important matter or evidence.
We have to consider whether there is sufficient reasons for review of the impugned
order.
37.
This is a technical issue and the Commission has the advantage of the view of
POSOCO, SRPC and CEA on the issue. The gists of the views of these expert bodies
have been discussed in the earlier part of the order. Their views are discussed in brief
as under:
(a)
SRPC has submitted that quantum of relief identified should be available
at all times, whether peak or off peak periods. In case maximum feeder loading is
considered, then visible relief could not be much lesser than the desired relief as it
does not consider the pattern of the feeder throughout the day whereas the average
feeder loading considers the loading pattern of the feeder throughout the day.
SRPC has referred to the load relief on account of the operation of first stage of UFR
in case of one incident on 7.6.2013 when AP could provide only 202 relief as against
Page 30 of 33
the expected relief of 882 MW which is about 23% of the expected relief. SRPC
has submitted that with this kind of relief realization in real time, the grid security
would tend to get compromised.
(b)
SRLDC has submitted that the average demand for the month of February
2014 was about 90% of the maximum demand and the ratio between maximum and
minimum demand was about 85%. Accordingly, the load available for relief should
not be less than 85% of the approved value at any point of time. Meeting this
criterion at least to nearest value shall be possible only if the average value of feeder
is considered for computation.
(c)
NLDC has submitted that contingencies in the system can take place at
any point of time and adequate load relief must be there, irrespective of the time of
occurrence of contingencies. Effect of UFR and df/dt actuated load shedding has to
be affirmative and maximum load of feeders should be considered to ensure that
relief is adequate under all conditions. Actual operation of UFR may take place only
under large contingencies and the constituents may not have any apprehension
regarding frequent operation of UFR.NLDC has submitted that at present in Eastern,
Northern and North Eastern Regions, maximum load in the feeders is being
considered for computation of load relief. However, in Western Region load relief is
being calculated on average value. NLDC has prayed to consider minimum load in
the feeders for computation of target relief under UFR and df/dt on identified feeders.

Page 31 of 33
(d)
CEA has opined that as the grid security is of paramount importance,
AUFLS Scheme is required to be implemented by all Stations faithfully to avoid grid

collapse in case of any severe contingency. Since excursion of frequency to the
level of 49.2 Hz does not occur under normal system operation and implementation
of AUFLS is unlikely to create any difficulty to the consumers, it is desirable that all
stations provide load relief under ULFLS scheme at least equivalent to the quantum
as intimated by the respective RPC on the basis of the average load on the feeders
covered in the scheme during the previous year.
38.
The expert bodies have opined that the UFR setting should be either on average
load or minimum load and have not subscribed to the contention of the Review
Petitioner that the UFR setting should be on the basis of the maximum load. SRPC and
SRLDC have also recommended the load relief on average basis. Even during the
course of hearing on 9.4.2013 in the main petition, SRLDC had submitted that during
PCC/OCC meeting of SRPC, the Review Petitioner had agreed for the average load in
feeders for UFR operation. Therefore, we feel that UFR setting on average load is
implementable and accordingly, we do not find any sufficient reason to review our order
dated 19.12.2013.
39.
UFR and df/dt relays are life saving protection scheme of the grid and last line of
defence against any major grid disturbance and we observe that a conservative
approach generally needs to be adopted in regard to last line of defence mechanism,
more so in view of the fact that operation of these relays under the prevailing frequency
regime are not likely to cause inconvenience to power utilities during normal operation
Page 32 of 33
and the need for operation of these relays arises only during emergency conditions. We
are of the view that a conservative approach should be generally adopted in regard to
last line of defence mechanism to ensure that desired load relief is available in all
contingencies.
40.
In our view of the above, there is no ground to review to order dated 19.12.2013
and accordingly the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/(A. K. Singhal)
Member
sd/(M. Deena Dayalan)

Member
sd/(Gireesh B. Pradhan)
Chairperson

Page 33 of 33

In The Matter of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Matter of

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The Matter of

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Review of order dated 19.12.2013 in Petition No. 263/MP/2012 pertaining to maintaining

1. Southern Regional Load Despatch Centre

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

The following were present:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

The Review Petitioner has submitted that determination of targeted quantum on

direction dated 19.12.2013, compliance report indicating implementation of quantum of

on 12.1.2014. The petitioner has submitted that

The recommendation of SRPC dated 1.10.2012 for revision of the existing

settings of UFRs in stage-I, II and III was implemented on 1.11.2012, based on

by providing 18 Nos. of additional feeders for Stage-I, Stage-II and Stage-III of

SRPC, vide its letter No. CE/SRPC/SE-I/2013/9169-81, dated 21.8.2013

communicated the revised Automatic Under Frequency Relay settings and

The first two stages of revised frequency settings are to be adopted by

In terms of the Commissions order dated 19.12.2013, additional feeders

At present all the available 132 kV feeders including power transformers

were taken into consideration for implementation of the various protective

depending on the availability of generation and demand the assertion of targeted

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

quantum needed was reviewed and accordingly, additional feeders were

depending on the availability of generation and demand the assertion of targeted

Under the minimum demand conditions in December 2013 at 7772 MW,

7. In response, the representative of SRLDC submitted as under:

protection system in the State of AP is about 8661 MW is not correct as the

same as that of approved value decided by Protection Co-ordination Committee

With regard to feeder-wise discrepancy or less load available, SLDC is

responsible to monitor and ensure the availability of declared quantum through

With regard to computation of quantum of relief, the present average

Southern Regional Power Committed (SRPC), vide Record of Proceedings for

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

Only 7208 MW (excluding 2000 MW for Ramgundam Islanding scheme) of loads

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

Grid disturbance could occur anytime. Therefore, the constituents should be in a

in Relief obtained Relief Obtained

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

Commission`s direction. SRLDC has further submitted as under:

The maximum flow of different feeders occurs at different instances and

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

has submitted that considering the average value would be

According to the Review Petitioner all the available 132kV feeders

including power transformers were taken into consideration for implementation of

SRLDC has further submitted as under:

same as that of approved value of Protection Coordination Committee (PCC) of

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

SRLDC has prayed as under:

Direct the petitioner to identify suitable number of feeders ensuring load

Direct the petitioner to ensure availability of data of the identified feeders

in the SCADA system facilitating monitoring feeders/load available on regular

Petitioner submitted as under:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

In response, the representative of SRLDC submitted as under:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Order in Petition No. 7/RP/2014

Demand conditions of the year 2012 were considered for calculating

In a scenario where there is no RGMO and FGMO available, overloading

Submission of National Load Despatch Centre (NLDC)

Eastern Region: At present maximum load in the feeders is being

had insisted that the figures furnished by constituents should correspond to