- (1.) M/s Green Energy Association (herein after referred as Petitioner) filed a Petition on 28 January, 2014 praying for directions against MSEDCL to comply with provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005 and issue Open Access permissions to the members of the Petitioner pursuant to their respective applications under Section 86(1) (e) read with Sections 42, 129, 142 and 149 of the Electricity Act, 2003; Regulation No. 4 of MERC (Distribution Open Access) Regulations, 2005, Regulation 92 and 94 of MERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2004 and Order dated 3 January, 2013 issued by the Commission in Case Nos. 8, 18 & 20 of 2012.
(2.) The prayers of the Petitioner are as under: a) Direct Respondent No.1 to immediately issue the open access permissions and also the credit notes to the members of Petitioner for energy injected till date and continue to issue the same in timely manner. b) Allow change of buyer/consumer where for same period as per the original application the buyer/consumer under whose name open access application was made has refused to purchase power due to inordinate delay by Respondent No.1 in granting open access permissions. c) Direct Respondent No. 1 to adjust the energy injected by the members of the Petitioner till date who have applied for captive use and third party sale in consumer, bills (whether new consumer or original consumer, as the case may be) and compensate for the loss incurred by the generators in the event the same cannot be adjusted; d) Award cost of these proceedings against the Respondents and in favour of the Petitioner. e) Pass such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Commission may deem just in the facts of the present case." The interim prayers of the Petitioner are as under: " a) Pass an ad -interim ex -parte order directing Respondent No.1 to immediately issue the open access permissions and also the credit notes to the members of Petitioner for energy injected till date and continue to issue the same in timely manner. b) Confirm the ex -parte orders after notice to the Respondents; and c) Pass such other order(s) as the Hon'ble Commission may deem just in the facts of the present case."
(3.) The fact of the case as stated in the Petition are as follows: 3.1 Petitioner, M/s Green Energy Association was set up in 2013 as non -profit organization having its head office situated in Lower Parel, Mumbai. The main object of the Petitioner is development of Renewal Energy including Solar Energy. 3.2 The Petitioner has 36 members in the State of Maharashtra. Members of the Petitioners have set up Solar PV power plants within the state. The members of the Petitioner who were inclined to sell power to third parties initiated negotiations with third parties for the sale of the power to be produced by their solar power plants. Various PPAs were entered between the Members of Petitioner and third parties. 3.3 The members of the Petitioner have sought Open Access permission from MSEDCL and have filed requisite applications qua the same. The Solar Power Plants of the Members of Petitioner have commissioned and the Members have submitted the requisite Commissioning Certificate to MSEDCL. 3.4 The Petitioner has been informed by its members that applications are pending with MSEDCL for a period of more than 121 days and in some cases more than 290 days from the date of Commissioning .Consequently, the members of Petitioner are unable to get credit notes, as Open Access permission from MSEDCL is prerequisite for issuing credit notes by relevant circle office of MSEDCL. 3.5 MSEDCL has failed to inform the applicants within what time frame the said Open Access permissions would be issued to the applicants. MSEDCL has also failed to give any reasons for such inordinate delays in processing such applications. 3.6 Petitioner submitted that due to such arbitrary acts of the MSEDCL, an amount of approximately Rs. 568 Lakhs cannot be recovered by the members of Petitioner from the Open Access consumers as on 31 December, 2013. 3.7 It was further submitted that the approximate project cost of Solar PV Project is of Rs. 7.65 Crore per MW and an investment of about Rs. 96.39 Crore has already been made by the members who are availing Open Access for sale of power. Actual cost could be more as the capital cost in many cases could even exceed the average capital cost. Considering 70% to 75 % of the investment is from borrowed funds, the borrowing is to the tune of approximately Rs. 72 crores. 3.8 Further with interest at 13% to 14% per annum payable on such borrowed funds, the investors are already liable to pay interest of about approximately Rs. 4.54 crores from the date of commissioning till date. 3.9 Petitioner submitted that projects with capacity of 12.60 MW have already been commissioned under Open Access mode by the investors and the power is being fed into the grid. The Petitioner submits that MSEDCL is enjoying the benefits of such power fed into grid and enriching itself by collecting the value of the power from its customers and at same time not issuing Open Access permissions and consequently also not issuing credit notes to the developers for want of Open Access permissions. 3.10 In some cases on account of such inordinate delay, the third party purchasers may consider cancelation of the PPA and in such cases members of Petitioners would be required to identify new buyers. According to the Petitioner it will therefore imperative that the Commission directs MSEDCL to allow for change of name of new buyer for the same period as if it had been in the original application. 3.11 It is prayed that the Commission may direct MSEDCL to adjust the generated power and consequently, revise the bills of consumers for the same period. Also in the event new buyer cannot be identified it will be necessary for the Commission to direct MSEDCL to compensate the developers where the PPA is cancelled due to their inaction. 3.12 Petitioner has submitted the details of Open Access applications for sale to third party as well as captive use made by the members of Petitioner and it is as follows: - Sr. Name of generator Installed Date of Power sale Name of Date of Contract No. capacity commissioning option consumer application demand in MW (Third Party/Captive) 9 ­May -13 1 Bothra Agro 1.00 27 -Aug -13 Captive - - - - - - - - - - 1000 Equipments Pvt. KVA Ltd. 2 Patodia Forgings and 0.60 25 -Sep -13 Captive - - - - - - - - - - - 29 -June -13 1250 Gears Ltd. KVA 3 Patel Wood 1.00 28 -Mar -13 Third Party Amcor Rigid 12 -Apr -13 2000 Syndicate Plastic India KVA Pvt. Ltd. 4 New Patel Saw Mill 1.00 28 -Mar -13 Third Party Amcor Rigid 12 -Apr -13 2000 Plastic India KVA Pvt. Ltd. 5 Dr. D H Patel 1.00 28 -Mar -13 Third Party Amcor Rigid 12 -Apr -13 2000 Plastic India KVA Pvt. Ltd. 6 Hemant Group 1.20 14 -Aug -13 Third Party Atharva 17 -Jun -13 4000 Foundaries KVA Pvt. Ltd. 7 Agarwal Mineral 4.00 6 -Sep -13 Third Party Pudumjee 13 -Aug -13 10412 Goa Pvt. Ltd. Pulp and Paper KVA Mills Ltd. 8 Gangadhar 1.00 25 -Sep -13 Third Party Pudumjee 13 -Aug -13 4950 Narsingdas Agrawal Industries Ltd. KVA (HUF) 9 Saidpur Jute Co. 0.60 25 -Sep -13 Third Party Pudumjee 13 -Aug -13 4950 Ltd. Industries Ltd. KVA 10 GI Energies 0.60 25 -Sep -13 Third Party Gabriel India 15 -Jul -13 2000 Ltd. KVA 11 Advik Hi -tech Pvt. 0.60 25 -Sep -13 Third Party Brahma Bazaz 12 -Jun -13 1184 Ltd. Hotel Ltd. KVA Total 12.60 ;