- (1.) Indian Wind Power Association ­ Maharashtra State Chapter (IWPA -MSC) (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner), working towards creation of an enabling regulatory and policy environment for investments in the wind energy sector, filed a petition dated 30 July, 2013 MERC Order _Case No. 93 of 2013 Page 1 seeking directions against MSEDCL (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1), a company engaged in distribution of electricity in the State of Maharashtra, to enter into power purchase agreement at the tariff approved for FY 2013 -14 as per the Order dated 22 March, 2013 in Case No. 6 of 2013 and the Commercial Circular No. 196 dated 29 April, 2013 issued by the Respondent No. 1. MEDA (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 2) is a Governmental Organisation established for the purpose of harnessing and developing alternate energy and nodal agency for developing and encouraging Renewable Energy in the State of Maharashtra. Government of Maharashtra was later impleaded as a party during the course of the proceedings in the matter.
(2.) The Petitioner in its petition made the following submissions: 2.1 The Petitioner submitted that Respondent No. 1 refused to sign Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) (hereinafter referred to also as Energy Purchase Agreements or EPAs in the Order) with wind power generators at the tariff approved by this Commission for FY 2013 -14 as per the Order dated 22 March, 2013 in Case No. 6 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Tariff Order) under the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Renewable Energy Tariff) Regulations, 2010. 2.2 The Petitioner submitted that based on the Tariff Order, Respondent No. 1 issued the Commercial Circular No. 196 of 2013 dated 29 April, 2013. The Circular categorically specified that tariff specified in the Tariff Order shall be applicable to the New RE projects to be commissioned during FY 2013 -14. The circular albeit is in the form of instructions to the Distribution Circles, is an acceptance of the generic Tariff Order of 22 March, 2013 in Case No. 6 of 2013 of this Commission. Yet, the Respondent No. 1 had filed a Petition on 7 May, 2013, which is referred as Case No. 65 of 2013, the prayers of which irrespective of merits or demerits is an attempt for back door review of the Tariff Order. 2.3 The Petitioner submitted that the Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Government of Maharashtra amended Wind Policy 2008 vide the Government Resolution dated 3 August, 2009 bearing No. Apak -2009/Pra.Kra.1528/Urja -7. The Amended Wind Policy amongst other amendments provided that it shall be binding on the Promoters/Developers/Investors to sell 100% electricity generated from non -conventional source to licensee or client in the State. 2.4 The Petitioner also submitted that based on information obtained from selected manufacturers of wind turbines, more than 270 MW wind farm projects have already been commissioned but no PPA has been signed. The Petitioner submitted that non - signing of the PPA by Respondent No. 1 at the tariff specified in the Tariff Order tantamount to non compliance of the Orders of this Commission and against the principles of doctrine of estoppels. 2.5 Further, the Petitioner submitted that over 270 MW Wind power projects being already commissioned and power being fed into the grid of Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 is enjoying the benefits of such power fed into the grid and collecting the value of the power from its customers and at the same time not effecting payment to the developers for want of PPA. As per the Petitioner, even without PPA, Respondent No. 1 ought to pay the developers who have fed power into the grid as the same is construed as sale to Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the Tariff Order read with the 'No Objection Certificate' issued to the developers by Respondent No. 1. Hence, the Petitioner prayed that the date of invoice to be deemed as 60 days from date of joint meter reading (JMR) and if JMR is not taken, to be 60 days from normal date of JMR in the vicinity of the wind farm. The Petitioner further prayed that the Respondent No. 1 be directed to pay interest at 1.25% per month beyond a period of 60 days from the deemed date of invoice despite the Respondent No. 1 not having signed the PPA with the developer with effect from such a date. 2.6 Based on the above submissions, following were the prayers of the Petitioner: "a. Direct Respondent No. 1 to enter into power purchase agreement with wind project developers with retrospective commencement of term thereof from April 1, 2013 in accordance with Order dated March 22, 2013 in Case No. 6 of 2013 read with MERC RE Tariff Regulations, 2010 and its Commercial b. Direct Respondent No. 1 to enter into power purchase agreement at the tariff decided by the Hon'ble Commission throughout the control period. c. Direct Respondent no.1 to consider 60 days from Joint Meter Reading date if Joint meter reading is not taken joint meter reading date in respect of projects in the vicinity be deemed as date of invoice for effecting payments to the wind power project developers and computing payment of interest for delayed payments. In the event, the Hon'ble Commission considers to grant to the d. Petitioner, relief in terms of prayer (a) above, then the Hon'ble Commission may direct Respondent No. 1 to pay interest @ 1.25% per month to the members MERC Order _Case No. 93 of 2013 Page 3 of the Petitioner on the amounts due beyond 60 days from deemed date of invoice in terms of Prayer (c) above.. e. To initiate proceedings against Respondent No. 1 and its officers under Sections 129, 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for willful disobedience and for securing compliance of the Orders passed by the Hon'ble Commission; f. To refer the matter to the Hon'ble High Court for initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondents No. 1 and its officers; and Pass such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Commission may deem just in g. the facts of the present case."
(3.) The first hearing in the matter was held on 31 July, 2013. In the hearing, the Respondent No. 1 sought additional time for filing its objections. The Commission directed the Petitioner and Respondents to file their written arguments with copies to all the parties including Consumer Representatives within 10 days and scheduled the next hearing on 20 August, 2013.;