Before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission Gandhinagar
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
BEFORE THE GUJARAT ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION GANDHINAGAR Petition No.1569 of 2016 In the matter of: Petition for determination of tariff under the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 with respect to renewable source of energy Petitioner: Ajanta Energy Private Limited OREVA House, Third Floor, Thaltej Circle, Titanium Square, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad Represented by: Advocate Shri Ashish Jha along with Shri O. T. Gulati V/s Respondent No. 1: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390 007 Represented by : Shri V. T. Patel Respondent No. 2 : Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390 007 Represented by: Shri B.J.Upadhyay Page | 1 Respondent No. 3 : Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited Saradar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Race Course, Vadodara 390 007. Represented by : Shri Amit Sachan Respondent No. 4 : Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Limited Visnagar Road, Mehsana-384 001. Represented by: Shri K.D.Barot Respondent No. 5 : Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited Urja Sadan, Nana Varachha Road, Kapodara, Surat 395 006. Represented by: Shri P.M.Patel Respondent No. 6 : Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited Off Nana Mava Main Road, Laxminagar, Rajkot 360 004. Represented by: Nobody was present Respondent No. 7 : Torrent Power Limited-Surat Torrent House, Station Road, Surat 395 003. Represented by : Shri Chetan Bundela Respondent No. 8 : Torrent Power Limited Torrent House, Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380 009. Represented by : Shri Chetan Bundela Respondent No. 9 : Torrent Power Limited-Dahej Page | 2 At & Po. Dahej, Ta: Wagra, Bharuch 392 130. Represented by : Shri Chetan Bundela Respondent No. 10 : Energy & Petrochemical Department Block No. 5, 5th Floor, Sachivalay, Gandhinagar Represented by : Nobody was present Respondent No. 11 : Irrigation Department, Govt. of Gujarat Block No. 9, Second Floor, New Sachivalay, Sector 10, Gandhinagar Represented by : Nobody was present Respondent No. 12 : Kandla Port Trust Limited Port & Customs Building, New Kandla, Kutch Represented by : Nobody was present Respondent No. 13 : MPSEZ Utilities Private Limited Adani House, Nr. Mithakali Circle Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009 Represented by : Nobody was present Respondent No. 14 : Aspen Infrastructure Limited Piparia, Waghodia, Vadodara 391 760 Represented by : Nobody was present Respondent No. 15 : Jubilant Infrastructure Private Limited Page | 3 Plot No. 5, Vilayat GIDC, Vagra, Bharuch 390 012 Represented by : Nobody was present CORAM: Shri P.J.Thakkar, Member Shri K. M. Shringarpure, Member Shri Anand Kumar, Chairman Date: 06/02/2017 DAILY ORDER 1. The matter was kept for hearing on 17.01.2017. Advocate Shri Ashish Jha, on behalf of the Petitioner, submitted that the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking determination of project specific tariff for small hydro project of 12 MW (3×4 MW) at Dolatpura, downstream of Kadana Dam being developed by the Petitioner. 1.1. He referred letter dated 19.12.2016 filed before the Commission and clarified that the generic tariff determined by the Commission vide order dated 14.12.2016 is not suitable for the Petitioner’s project due to the fact that (i) capital cost considered by the Commission is lower (2) there is no consideration of royalty amount payable by the Petitioner in the tariff determination and (iii) there are some differences in technical/financial parameters proposed by the Petitioner and those considered in generic tariff by the Commission. Hence, the Petitioner desires to pursue the project specific tariff Petition filed by the Petitioner. Page | 4 1.2. On a query from the Commission, whether the Petitioner has identified any buyer for the electricity generated from the project or executed any Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with any Distribution Licensee who has agreed to purchase the electricity generated from the Petitioner’s plant and under which provision the Commission could determine the tariff for the Petitioner project if there is no PPA. He submitted that there is no PPA between the Petitioner and any Distribution Licensee. Further the Petitioner has not approached any Distribution Licensee in this regard in the absence of tariff determined by the Commission. He further submitted that the Govt. of Gujarat has assured that GUVNL will purchase the surplus power, if any available after captive use. But such letter is not submitted on record of this Petition, which will be put up by the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Commission may decide other commercial issues, though the Petitioner may utilize the electricity generated from the project for self-use. 1.3. He referred Clause 4.2.1 of the Concession Agreement dated 16.03.2015 executed between the Petitioner and Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department Gandhinagar, and submitted that the overall responsibilities for the entire project during the whole concession period is of the concessionaire i.e. Petitioner. He also referred Clause 6.1 of the Concession Agreement which provides that the Petitioner shall use the electricity generated from project for self-use and sell the Page | 5 surplus energy to the GEB/Discoms at the tariff rate determined by the Commission. He also referred Clause 8.1.1 of the Concession Agreement and submitted that the concessionaire (Petitioner) shall pay to Irrigation Department Rs. 0.91/unit as royalty. On a query from the Commission that, was it a commercial decision of the Petitioner or it was as per bidding documents, the Petitioner admitted that it was a commercial decision of the Petitioner and as he had quoted the highest royalty, the project was awarded to him. 1.4. He further referred Clause 6.4 - Sale of Power and submitted that the said clause provides that the Petitioner will enter into long term supply agreement with Gujarat Electricity Board or any/all of its successors only for the maximum period of the Concession Agreement less the construction period. Therefore, the Commission needs to determine project specific tariff for the Petitioner based on which the Petitioner may approach to the Distribution Licensee for sale of electricity. On a query from the Commission about the capacity of captive utilization of energy he confirmed that the maximum utilization of power for captive use may be 5 to 6 MW only. 1.5. He further submitted that the petitioner had made a presentation before the Energy and Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat to consider the present project under earlier Small/ Mini/ Micro hydel projects in Gujarat notified on 10.01.2005, which was not accepted by the Govt. of Gujarat. However, the Energy & Page | 6 Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat has granted in principle approval that the Gujarat Electricity Board or any/all of its successors will buy power generated from the project on long-term basis during the period of concession agreement. As directed by the Commission during the hearing, the Petitioner has agreed to submit the said letter received from Energy & Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat on record. 2. Shri V.T.Patel, on behalf of the Respondent No.1 GUVNL, submitted that the Respondent, GUVNL has not received any instruction or letter from the Energy & Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat regarding purchase of power generated from the Petitioner plant and/or execution of Power Purchase Agreement with the Petitioner. He further submitted that GUVNL is complying their non-solar RPO also by signing PPA with Biomass, mini hydro and MSW based power project developers. Therefore, there may not be any requirement of the energy generated from the Petitioner’s plant at present. 3. Shri Chetan Bundela, on behalf of Torrent Power Limited, submitted that they are fulfilling the Non-solar RPO requirement. Moreover, TPL will also purchase the renewable energy as a share of energy purchased from MSW projects with whom GUVNL has signed PPAs and fulfil their RPO for other energy component specified by the Commission in RPO Regulations. Page | 7 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 62 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 for determination of project specific tariff of the Petitioner’s project. The Petitioner is a generating company as per the Section 2 (28) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Respondent No. 2 to 9 and 12 to 15 are Licensees as per the Section 2 (17) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 62 (1) (a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides that the Commission may determine the tariff for supply of electricity by a generating company to a Distribution Licensee. Therefore, the Petitioner has to first identify the licensee to whom it intends to sell the power and enter into a PPA for sale of power. In the absence of any identified buyer, applicability of the tariff to the licensee and admissibility of the petition cannot be decided. The PPA is, therefore, required to be signed by the generator and distribution licensee and approved by the Commission, in absence of which the determination of tariff will be a futile exercise. Hence, we direct the Petitioner to clarify under which provision the Commission could determine the tariff in the absence of PPA between the generating company and licensee, so that the present petition is admitted. 4.1. Moreover, we note that the Petitioner submitted that the Energy and Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat has assured that GEB/GUVNL will purchase the Electricity generated from the Petitioner’s plant and agreed to submit a copy of such letter from E & P Department. We direct the Petitioner to submit the said letter received from Page | 8 Energy & Petrochemicals Department, Govt. of Gujarat, who is Respondent No. 10 in this Petition on record and also direct them to make their submissions on the observations of the Commission in para 4 above, within 10 days of this order with a copy to the Respondents.