BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR Petition No of 2015 In the Matter of: Non-Compliance of Solar RPO for by the Obligated entities specified in GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2014 and in the matter of an application under Section 142 and 146 of the EA, 2003 and GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, Petitioner : Green Energy Association Sargam, 143, Taqdir Terrace, Near Shirodakar High School, Dr. E.Borjes Road, Parel (E), Mumbai Represented by : Learned Advocate Shri Prakul Khurana with Advocate Shri Manish Singh Lakhawat. V/s. Respondent No.1 : Torrent Power Ltd. Electricity House, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad Represented by : Learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Chauhan with Advocate Ms. Reshma Nathani with Shri Chetan Bundela Respondent No.2 : Torrent Power Ltd. Torrent House, Station Road, Surat Represented by : Learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Chauhan with Advocate Ms. Reshma Nathani with Shri Chetan Bundela 1

2 Respondent No.3 : Torrent Energy Ltd. Electricity House, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad Represented by : Learned Advocate Ms. Deepa Chauhan with Advocate Ms. Reshma Nathani with Shri Chetan Bundela Respondent No.4 : MPSEZ Utilities Pvt. Ltd. Adani House, Near Mithakhali Circle, Narvangpura, Ahmedabad Represented by : S/Shri Nirav Shah, Saurabh Singh and Dipak Gajjar Respondent No.5 : Gujarat Energy Development Agency 4 th Floor, Block No. 11 & 12, Udyog Bhavan, Sector- 11, Gandhinagar Represented by : S/Shri Anil Purohit and Rakesh Arya CORAM: Shri P.J.Thakkar, Member Shri K. M. Shringarpure, Member Date: 31/12/2016 ORDER [1] The present petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: (i) The State nodal agency GEDA should be asked to provide the details of the compliance of the Solar RPO for the FY and by the obligated entities. (ii) If there is any deficit and violation and non-compliance of the Regulations and provisions made in the tariff orders and mid-term review of the 2

3 Commission by the obligated entities, the Commission is requested to invoke the provisions of the Regulations to deal with severity the event of default by the obligated entity. (iii) GEDA shall be asked to procure the required number of certificates to the extent of the shortfall in the fulfillment of the obligations out of the amount in the fund. (iv) The obligated entities have again defaulted in the compliance of the solar RPO and shall be penalised under Section 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the provisions under the Regulations. [2] The facts mentioned in the case are briefly stated as under: 2.1 The petitioner is a registered Association of the companies engaged in the business of Renewable Energy. The Association represents the majority of the members who represent about 90 % of the investors in the Solar REC mechanism. 2.2 The Commission, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 61, 66, 86 (1) (e) and 181 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and all powers enabling it in that behalf, has notified the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 and its First Amendment in The said Regulations provide the minimum quantum of purchase (in %) from the renewable energy sources as below: 3

4 Minimum Quantum of Purchase (in %) from Renewable Energy Sources (in terms of energy in kwh) Others (Biomass, Year Total Wind Solar Bagasse, MSW etc.) Regulations 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the said Regulations consider the Renewable Energy Certificate as a valid instrument for discharge of the mandatory obligations set-out in the Regulations. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations provides for consequences of default. 2.5 In the Order for mid-term review of Business Plan for Torrent Power Limited- Distribution Ahmedabad and Surat in case No. 1366/2013 and 1367/2013, Torrent Power distribution has projected the availability of power from various sources including solar. Thus, the availability as approved by the Commission for solar power in FY and FY is as follows: Energy Source Solar Energy (MUs)

5 2.6 Solar RPO was projected for Ahmedabad Supply Area in FY as 1.25% and for FY as 1.5 %. The RPO compliance for FY and in MUs is as follows: Sr. Particulars Energy Requirement (MUs) Solar Energy to be procured (MUs) Compliance (Solar Energy) Solar Energy (MUs) Solar REC (MUs) Compliance (MUs) Compliance (as % of Energy Requirement) 1% 1% Solar RPO was projected for Surat supply Area in FY as 1.25% and for FY as 1.5 %. The RPO compliance for FY and in MUs is as follows: Sr. Particulars Energy Requirement (MUs) Solar Energy to be procured (MUs) Compliance (Solar Energy) Solar Energy (MUs) Solar REC (MUs) Compliance (MUs) Compliance (as % of Energy Requirement) 1% 1% 5

6 2.8 Looking to the Judgment in OP No. 1 of 2013 and IA No. 291 and IA No. 420 of 2013, OP No.2 of 2013 & OP No. 4 of 2013 dated and Judgment in Appeal No. 258/2013 & Appeal No. 21/2014 & IA No. 28 of 2014 dated , if the situation of FY is analyzed, the energy required to be purchased for fulfillment of Ahmedabad and Surat solar RPO of the distribution license area was 132 MUs. Total Capacity tied up by TPL was 50 MW and 5 MW. Total expected generation from the said capacity is only 88 MUs and hence, in any case there will be a major deficit of the solar RPO. Thus, it can be seen that adequate capacity was not tied up by TPL distribution licensee for the purchase of Solar energy for fulfillment of Solar RPO. As actual generation being lower than the normative generation due to reasons beyond the control of the distribution licensees, it is to be noted that the point of shortfall in generation arises if the plant is installed and generation is happening. Whereas in this case there was no installation in existence, hence there is no question of lower generation than the normative generation due to reasons beyond control or because of the natural calamity in the State, energy consumption in the State has gone down or renewable energy generation in the State has been affected. For the matter related to unavailability of solar energy/power from the plant tied-up for supply of power for compliance of Solar RPO i.e. 50 MW solar PV plant of Kindle, it may be noted that they were given a new timeline of 12 months for the completion of the project and also as per the tariff petition of 6

7 the licensee, it would be commissioned by the revised Scheduled COD (March 2014) as approved by the Commission. 2.8 From the above submissions, it can be inferred that (a) sufficient time was given to the distribution licensee and the generator to execute the project for making the solar power available for the FY and (b) the Commission has also expressed concerns on the intentions and the seriousness of the obligated distribution licensee towards the compliance of the solar RPO. 2.9 Looking at the inventory details of Solar RECs on Exchanges, it can be noted that the Solar RECs were available since May, CERC vide its Order dated in petition No. SM/016/2014 further revised (lowered) the Floor and Forbearance price of Solar RECs from Rs to Rs and from Rs. 13,000 to Rs respectively. Solar RECs were available in both the Exchanges at the revised floor price during the last 3 months of FY In the Order dated in Suo-Motu proceedings in Petition No and 1312/2013 in pursuance to the directions of Hon ble APTEL in Order dated in Appeal No. 258/2013 and 21/2014 and the order dated in IA No. 187 of 2015 the Commission directed TPL, TEL and MUPL to fulfill the shortfall in their respective RPOs within a period of 6 months. However, the Commission has not given any Order/Instruction for compliance of the deficit/shortfall of RPO for FY and FY

8 [3] The respondent vide its reply dated , submitted that they tied up 50 MW solar power with M/s. Kindle Eng. & Construction Pvt. Ltd. The Scheduled COD (SCOD) as per the PPA was January 28, 2012, which was extended as per the order of the Commission dated January 18, The respondent signed supplementary PPA on February 28, 2013 with M/s. Kindle Eng. Ltd. to effect the revised SCOD and change in site of the project and the same was approved by the Commission vide its order dated April 24, The revised SCOD of the project was December 08, 2013 as per the order of the Commission. However, M/s. Kindle Eng. Ltd. commissioned part of the capacity (29.9 MW) only on March 31, 2014 and the balance capacity 20.1 MW on February 04, The petitioner ought to take into consideration that this aspect of delayed and part commissioning of the project was beyond the control of the respondent. 3.1 The respondent has also signed the PPA for 2.5 MW each with the project developers, M/s. Ananth Solar Power Maharashtra Private Ltd. and M/s. Azure Sun Energy Pvt. Ltd. on April 20, 2012 in accordance with the Commission s order dated April 18, 2012 in case No of 2011 for purchase of renewable energy from Solar Roof Top to be developed in Gandhinagar. The respondent has also signed PPA with M/s. SMC on March 29, 2014 for sourcing solar power from installed capacity of 750 kwp and two PPAs each of 0.5 MW with GPCL on 3 rd July, 2013 and January 24, 2014 for procuring power generated from the solar rooftop systems installed by GPCL. The respondent also signed PPA on 8

9 February 28, 2014 for procuring surplus energy generated from the solar rooftop system installed by AMC aggregating to 425 KW. 3.2 During FY , the respondent has signed PPA with M/s. Torrent Solar Gen Limited for purchase of power to be generated by 51 MW solar PV grid interactive power plant. The project has been commissioned in March The respondent has also signed PPA with Surat Municipal Corporation for solar power supply from 540 kwp plant. This project also has been commissioned in March, Moreover, the respondent signed MOUs for 10 MW with M/s. SunEdison Solar Power India Ltd. and M/s. EI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for 5MW for purchase of solar power. 3.3 Based on the above, the respondent submitted that, sincere efforts were made by the respondent to fulfill its solar RPO for FY by tying up solar capacity to meet its RPO requirements. [4] The matter was heard by the Commission on [5] Learned Advocate Shri Prakul Khurana, on behalf of the petitioner, reiterated the facts as mentioned in para 2 above. He further submitted that nonavailability of the power through PPAs did not come as surprise to TPL because of which they could not comply with their Solar RPO. 9

10 5.1 He further referred the judgement in O.P.No. 1 of 2013 & IA No. 291 & IA No. 420 of 2013, O.P. No. 2 of 2013, O.P.No. 4 of 2013 dated and submitted that the State Commissions are bound by their own Regulations and they must act strictly as per their Regulations and shall give directions regarding carry forward/review in RPO and consequential order for default of the distribution licensees/other obligated entities. [6] Shri Chetan Bundela, on behalf of the respondent, reiterated the facts as mentioned in para 3 above. He further submitted that the respondent published repeated advertisements in newspapers inviting renewable energy generators to supply power from the renewable energy sources in the month of November However, they did not receive any encouraging response from the renewable energy developers. He confirmed that TPL is ready to purchase the solar power to fulfill its RPO target from anyone who agrees to supply solar power at the tariff determined by the Commission. 6.1 He further submitted that TPL Distribution was unable to fulfill their Renewable Energy Purchase Obligation due to non-availability of renewable energy generation under the preferential Tariff. He also submitted that, the purchase of RECs without any units, increases the power procurement cost of Torrent Power Ltd. and ultimately the consumers tariff is impacted. It will be a burden on the consumers. Hence, due to the above conditions, TPL has also preferred a petition to revise the RPO under the GERC (Procurement of Energy 10

11 from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010, which empower the Commission to revise the percentage of RPO in view of the supply constraints and factors beyond the control of the licensees. [7] We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction from the Commission against the Respondent No.1 to 4, distribution licensees and obligated entities under the provisions of GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 and amendments thereto. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not complied with the RPO Regulations with regard to Solar RPO during FY and Hence, the Commission may take actions against the Respondent No. 1 to 4 for noncompliance of RPO and impose penalty under Section 142 & 146 of the Act and direct them to deposit an amount in a fund to be created for fulfillment of RPO and nodal agency GEDA may be asked to procure the certificates to the extent of shortfall in fulfillment of obligation from the said fund. 7.1 We note that the Commission has notified the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 and amendment thereto vide Notification No. 2/2014 which stipulate RPO for FY and as under: 11

12 Minimum Quantum of Purchase (in %) from Renewable Energy Sources (in terms of energy in kwh) Others (Biomass, Year Total Wind Solar Bagasse, MSW etc.) According to the aforesaid provisions, the Solar RPO for FY was 1% and for FY it was 1.25 %. We also note that Regulation 5.1 of the aforesaid Regulations provides that the Renewable Energy Certificates issued under CERC (REC) Regulations shall be valid instrument for fulfillment of RPO. Therefore, the licensees can comply the RPO either by procurement of energy from solar generators or through procurement of RECs. 7.2 It is necessary to refer Regulation 4.2 of GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010, which reads as under: 4.2 The Commission may, suo-motu or at the request of a licensee, revise the percentage targets for a year as per clause 4.1 of these Regulations keeping in view supply constraints or other factors beyond the control of the licensee. We note that Regulation 4.2 of the aforesaid Regulations provides that in case of supply constraints or due to factors beyond the control of the licensee, the Commission may review/revise the percentage targets of the RPO of obligated entities. 12

13 7.3 Similarly, Regulation 7 also recognizes the review/revision of RPO when there is a short-fall or supply constraints of Renewable Energy, which reads as under: 7. Distribution Licensee 7.1 Each distribution licensee shall indicate, along with sufficient proof thereof, the estimated quantum of purchase from renewable energy sources for the ensuing year in tariff/ annual performance review petition in accordance with Regulations notified by the Commission. The estimated quantum of purchase shall be in accordance with clause 4.1 of these Regulations of the approved power purchase quantity for the ensuing year(s). In the event of the actual consumption in the license area being different from that approved by the Commission, the RPO shall be deemed to have been modified in accordance with clause 4.1. If the distribution licensee is unable to fulfil the obligation, the shortfall of the specified quantum of that year would be added to the specified quantum for the next year. However, credit for excess purchase from renewable energy sources would not be adjusted in the ensuing year. 7.2 Despite availability of renewable energy sources, if the distribution licensee fails to fulfil the minimum quantum of purchase from renewable energy sources, it shall be liable to pay compensation as per clause 9 of these Regulations. 13

14 7.4 It is also necessary to refer Regulation 9 of the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010, which reads as under: 9. Consequences of default 9.1 If an obligated entity does not fulfil the renewable purchase obligation as provided in these Regulations during any year and also does not purchase the certificates, the Commission may direct the obligated entity to deposit into a separate fund, to be created and maintained by such obligated entity, such amount as the Commission may determine on the basis of the shortfall in units of RPO and the forbearance price decided by the Central Commission: Provided that the fund so created shall be utilised, as may be directed by the Commission, partly for purchase of the certificates and partly for development of transmission infrastructure for evacuation of power from generating stations based on renewable energy sources. Provided that the obligated entities shall not be authorized to use the fund created in pursuance of the above, without prior approval of the Commission; Provided further that the Commission may empower an officer of the State Agency to procure from the Power Exchange the required number of certificates to the extent of the shortfall in the fulfillment of the obligations, out of the amount in the fund: Provided also that the distribution licensee shall be in breach of its license condition if it fails to deposit the amount directed by the Commission within 15 days of the communication of the direction. Provided that in case of any genuine difficulty in complying with the renewable purchase obligation because of non-availability of power from 14

15 renewable energy sources or the RECs, the obligated entity can approach the Commission to carry forward the compliance requirement to the next year: Provided further that where the Commission has consented to carry forward of compliance requirement, the provision regarding payment of regulatory charges as specified above shall not be applicable. We note that Regulation 9 of the aforesaid Regulations provides that the Commission may carry forward/review/revise the RPO percentage target whenever there is a supply constraint and in such case no penal provisions shall be applicable. 7.5 We also note that the Hon ble Tribunal has in its Judgment in OP No. 1/2013 and allied matters in para 28 (iv) recorded that the Commission has powers to give direction regarding carry forward/review in RPO after considering the facts of the case. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as follows: 28. In view of above discussions, we deem it appropriate to give directions to the State/Joint Commissions with regard to implementation of Renewable Energy Regulations in their respective States. The Tribunal after considering the contentions of the petitioners and the State/Joint Commissions, Central Commission and MNRE gives the following directions to the State/Joint Commissions under Section 121 of the Act:-.. (iv) The State Commission shall give directions regarding, carry forward/review in RPO and consequential order for default of the distribution licensees/other obligated entities as per the RPO Regulations. If the Regulations 15

16 recognise REC mechanism as a valid instrument to fulfill the RPO, the carry forward/review should be allowed strictly as per the provisions of the Regulations keeping in view of availability of REC. In this regard the findings of this Tribunal in Appeal no. 258 of 2013 and 21 of 2014 may be referred to which have been given with regard to RE Regulations of Gujarat Commission but the principles would apply in rem. In case of default in fulfilling of RPO by obligated entity, the penal provision as provided for in the Regulations should be exercised. 7.6 We further note that the Hon ble Tribunal has in Appeal No. 258/2013 and 21/2014 passed an Order dated and decided as under : 71. Summary of our findings: (i) The National Tariff Policy and the Regulations of the Central Commission and the State Commission recognize REC as valid instrument for fulfilling Renewable Purchase Obligation cast upon the obligated entities under Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, Purchase of REC would be deemed as purchase of energy from renewable energy source for fulfilling RPO obligation. When a legal fiction has been created by a statute, the same should be given full effect. (ii) An obligated entity has option to fulfill its RPO either by procuring renewable energy in physical form or by REC or partly by REC and partly by physical renewable energy. However, a distribution licensee has to exercise the option based on economic principles. An obligated entity other than the distribution 16

17 licensee may also opt for purchase of REC for fulfilling its RPO obligation to avoid the issues involved in banking, open access, sale of surplus power, etc., or if the RPO requirement is too small. (iii) Renewable energy generators like conventional generators have been given freedom under the Electricity Act in respect of choice of site, choice of counterparty buyer, freedom from tariff regulation when the generating company supplies to a trader or directly to a consumer. So far, the renewable energy generators were not able to exercise this freedom due to various constraints. The REC mechanism has opened up the market for renewable energy generators helping in expeditious exploitation of renewable energy potential in the country thus, serving the object of the Electricity Act, Thus, REC mechanism has to be encouraged. By treating REC as a valid instrument for discharge of mandatory RPO as set out in the Regulations, the State Commission has only followed the mandate of the Electricity Act, 2003 under Section 86(1)(e) for promotion of renewable sources of energy in the State. (iv) The State Commission can revise the RPO before or during a year or after passing of year under Regulation 4.2 of RE Regulation 2010 as explained under paragraphs 47 to 51 above. If the distribution licensee has not made efforts to procure requisite renewable energy to fulfill the RPO and also has not procured REC, the State Commission should not revise RPO under Regulation 4.2. However, 17

18 while revising the RPO targets, the State Commission has to ensure that such revision should not defeat the object of the Electricity Act and the Regulations. (v) If the RPO targets are revised under Regulation 4.2 due to inadequate capacity addition in a resource rich State, such reduction has to be uniform for all the entities. (vi) Under 5th proviso to Regulation 9, if the Commission is convinced that the obligated entity has faced genuine difficulty in meeting the RPO due to nonavailability of power from renewable sources or the REC, it may allow carry forward the compliance requirement to the next year. However, before exercising power under Regulation 9, the State Commission has to satisfy itself that there was difficulty in meeting the RPO from purchase of REC. Therefore, nonavailability of REC is a pre-condition for carry forward under Regulation 9. (vii) Admittedly there was substantial reduction in capacity addition of wind energy and other sources of renewable energy in the State during FY due to reasons beyond the control of the distribution licensee. Under such a condition the State Commission can reduce RPO targets for the wind energy and other energy. However, such reduction due to capacity constraints has to be uniform for all the obligated entities in the State. 18

19 (viii) In the present case, the State Commission has revised the RPO targets for various distribution licensees as per the actual. This way the State Commission has set up different RPO targets for four State owned distribution licensees, Torrent Power Surat and Ahmedabad at different levels for the same reason of inadequate capacity addition. This is not permissible. The State Commission has incorrectly revised the RPO for the deemed distribution licensees to zero or nearly negligible amount due to financial impact, low energy consumption, nascent stage of operation etc., in contravention to the Regulations. (ix) We find that RPO compliance of GUVNL for wind energy was satisfactory but compliance of biomass and other non-solar energy was quite low due to which there was default in fulfilling the non-solar RPO. Thus, during FY there appeared to be inadequate generation of biomass and other non solar energy sources in the State. The State Commission has to examine the reasons for the same and take necessary measures for accelerating capacity addition of biomass and other sources of renewable energy in the State. (x) We remand the matter to the State Commission to reconsider the whole issue afresh in light of our findings in this judgment. The State Commission is empowered to reduce the RPO targets for all the entities uniformly in view of reduction in capacity addition of wind energy and other sources in the State during the FY However, the consequences of shortfall with respect to 19

20 the revised RPO for different distribution licensees/deemed distribution licensees has to be decided by the State Commission according to Regulation 9. (xi) We do not find any infirmity in the State Commission relaxing the RPO for those deemed distribution licensees who purchase energy from GUVNL/distribution licensees at retail supply tariff and their consumption is included in determining the RPO of the supplying distribution licensee. (xii) In the circumstances of the case, we do not want to interfere with the decision of the State Commission to set off the shortfall in non-solar energy purchase with excessive solar energy procured during FY However, we have given certain directions in this regard for future in paragraph 68 above. (xiii) As regards public hearing for review of RPO, we have already given the necessary directions in our judgment in Appeal No. 24 of which have been reproduced under paragraph 27. As per the aforesaid decision, the Commission shall be required to verify the availability of Renewable Energy Sources potential. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is pertaining to the availability of the solar energy and also the RECs and stated that the respondents have not complied with the RPO Regulations and failed to fulfill their obligations, hence, the Commission may impose penalty on the respondents as provided in the 20

21 Regulations. The petitioner also contended that the Commission may direct the respondents that they may deposit an amount equivalent to shortfall in achievement of RPO target in a fund to be created by them as per the directives of the Commission and also direct the nodal agency GEDA to procure the RECs from the aforesaid fund for fulfillment of RPO targets of the respondent. 7.7 It is necessary to verify the availability of the solar energy in the State as well as in the country during the FY and as to whether the respondents had tried to comply the RPO by procurement of the solar energy at preferential tariff determined by the Commission or through the procurement of RECs from the Energy Exchange. The details of availability of solar power in the country as well as the addition of solar power capacity during the year and fulfillment of RPO by other obligated entities in the State are given in the tables below: Addition of Solar Power capacity Sr. No. Financial Year Gujarat (MW) Nation Wide (MW) (Source: 21

22 Torrent Energy (Dahej) Consumption of units during FY Mus Solar RPO Status report of obligated entities for the FY (1) GUVNL Consumption of units during Mus RPO Required Mus Purchased Mus REC s purchased Mus Total Mus Shortfall /Excess in Mus RPO Achieved (%) (%) Solar Non Solar Total TPL (Ahd + Surat) Consumption of units during FY Mus Solar Non Solar Total Non Solar Total

23 MPSEZ Utilities Pvt. Ltd. Consumption of units during FY Mus Solar Non Solar Total From the aforesaid tables it transpires that the addition of solar power capacity during the FY was adequate as there was substantial addition of the capacity in the country. 7.9 We also note that there are following distribution licensees in the State. i.e. (i) DGVCL, (ii) PGVCL, (iii) UGVCL, (iv) MGVCL, (v) TPL-Ahmedabad, (vi) TPL-Surat, (vii) TPL-Dahej, (viii) MPSEZ Utilities Pvt. Ltd., (ix) Jubilant Infrastructure Ltd., (x) Aspen Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Out of the aforesaid licensees only DGVCL, PGVCL, MGVCL & UGVCL have complied with the RPO of solar energy, i.e. 1.25% specified by the Commission for FY In fact, the above licensees have purchased the Solar energy upto 2.02 % of total consumption. Thus, GUVNL, on behalf of the aforesaid licensees, purchased higher solar energy than their requirement. Therefore, there is no case that no adequate solar energy was available in the State of Gujarat during FY

24 7.11 We note that the Torrent Power Ltd. had signed PPAs with M/s. Kindle Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. to supply solar energy generated from their 50 MW plant with SCOD on , which was subsequently extended to as per the Commission s order dated However, M/s. Kindle Engineering could commission part capacity of 29.9 MW on and balance capacity of 20.1 MW was commissioned on Thus, the energy from 20.1 MW capacity of solar project was not available during the period from to i.e. for 309 days the MW solar PV project was not available for generation of electricity from M/s. Kindle Engineering and Construction Pvt. Ltd. though PPA was signed by the petitioner, which is beyond the control of the petitioner. The electricity 19% PLF during above period works out to MUs. Thus, MUs of solar energy was not available for compliance of the Solar RPO to the petitioner which is beyond the control of the petitioner. Hence, if the same is added to actual solar RPO complied by the petitioner, solar RPO compliance would work out to MUs against the target of MUs resulting into shortfall of MUs TPL has submitted that they have signed MOU with M/s. Sun Edison Solar Power India Pvt. Ltd. on for 10 MW power plant set up by them. Moreover, they have signed MOU with M/s. EI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on for purchase of electricity generated from solar power plant of 5 MW. But the said MOUs were never converted into PPAs and no energy generated from it was 24

25 received by TPL. There is no mention about the reasons for non-conversion of MOUs into PPAs. In the absence of any such evidence on record to prove that the availability of solar energy during the FY from aforesaid plants was beyond the control of TPL, it is not acceptable to consider the same for revision or waiver of RPO We also note that the petitioner entered into PPAs with other Solar Project Developers like M/s. Ananth Solar, M/s. Azure Sun Energy, M/s. GPCL, M/s. Torrent Solar Gen, Surat Municipal Corporation but none of these projects could supply solar energy to the petitioner during FY which is beyond control of the petitioner. We also note the petitioner s contention of time constraints to tie up new capacities with notification of amendment in RPO Regulations with upward revision of RPO target for on 4th March, TPL has also stated that they have signed PPA with M/s. Torrent Solar Generation Ltd. for 51 MW Solar PV plant set up by the aforesaid company which has been commissioned in March The said PPA was signed by TPL during Hence, it is apparent that TPL made an attempt for compliance of solar RPO during the year As regards Solar RPO shortfall of MUs against target during , we decide to carry forward the same to be fulfilled in FY as FY and FY are already over in accordance with the provisions of the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 and 25

26 amendment thereto. We clarify that the petitioner TPL-D is required to fulfill this shortfall of MUs of solar RPO over and above (in addition to) the Solar RPO of We also note that Torrent Energy Ltd. and MPSEZ Utilities Pvt. Ltd. (MUPL) are also deemed distribution licensees. Torrent Energy Limited has fulfilled the Solar RPO of 1.24% and 6.67% of non-solar RPO by purchasing RECs; whereas MUPL has not complied with the RPO percentages. As far as the plea of MUPL that they are in nascent stage of operation and are unable to comply with the RPO percentages is concerned, the Commission had earlier in order dated in Suo-Motu Petition No. 1442/2014 decided as under: M/s. Kandla Port Trust, M/s. Jubilant Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Synefra Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. have submitted that they are procuring power from other distribution licensees of the State and their consumption is included in the consumption of respective licensees. Thus, the quantum of renewable power procured by the above distribution licensees be considered as fulfillment of RPO percentage of the aforesaid licensees. Any further imposition of RPO on the above distribution licensees will lead to double counting of quantum of power for RPO percentage. We, therefore, decide that the RPO obligation is not applicable to the above distribution licensees till they are procuring power from the other licensees as consumer. Hence, the Commission decides to exempt these licensees from the RPO obligations fulfillment for the FY 26

27 Once the above licensees start procurement of power from other sources or the same source as a distribution licensee, the provisions of RPO will be applicable Based on the above observations, we decide that the RPO percentages for the FY for the GUVNL and its subsidiary companies and shortfall in procurement of Non-solar category of renewable energy by the above distribution licensees for fulfillment of RPO should be adjusted against the excess solar category of renewable energy for the FY We also decide to exempt the SEZs which are deemed distribution licensees and Kandla Port Trust from applicability of RPO for the FY The respondent No.1, GEDA is directed to obtain the compliance of RPO by the obligated entities on a quarterly basis and submit the same to the Commission regularly According to aforesaid decision the contention of the respondent MUPL that non-fulfillment of solar RPO during FY by them was beyond their control is not acceptable. There is no evidence on record which proves that MUPL made efforts during FY to fulfill its RPO compliance. Therefore, any contention of the aforesaid respondent for non-fulfilment of solar RPO during FY is not acceptable and the same is rejected. The status of RPO Compliance for FY is also the subject matter of Petition No of 2015 and Petition No of In these petitions, we have dealt with the 27

28 plea for revision in solar RPO for FY and decided that Solar RPO remains at 1.25% for FY We note that during the pendency of the aforesaid petition the period of FY is already over. Moreover, 8 months of the FY have also lapsed. We are, therefore, of the view that the shortfall in RPO compliance by the respondent TPL, MUPL and TEL needs to carry forward as the Commission is empowered under Regulation 7.2 of the GERC (Procurement of Energy from Renewable Sources) Regulations, 2010 and amendment thereto. We, therefore, direct the respondents to comply with the shortfall in RPO for FY by procuring either solar energy at preferential rate or purchase of RECs during FY This shall be over and above the RPO targets for FY With this order the present petition stands disposed of. 9. We order accordingly. Sd/- [P.J.THAKKAR] MEMBER Sd/- [K.M.SHRINGARPURE] MEMBER Place: Gandhinagar. Dated: 31/12/