MERC Rejects Grace Period Sought by 28 RE Generators

Renewable Energy Generators were Seeking Grace Period in Implementation of MERC (Forecasting, Scheduling and Deviation Settlement for Solar and Wind Generation) Regulations

The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has partially rejected a plea by renewable energy generators in Maharashtra seeking intervention in a matter regarding non-compliance of a MERC order regarding forecasting, scheduling and deviation settlement.

Gajalaxmi Industries_HUF, Shivashri TechnoHomes Pvt.Ltd., Ushahkal Nursing Home, Sai Service Pvt. Ltd., Bhanudas G. Raibage (Raysons Group), Rayson Marketing Pvt Ltd., Sheela Shivaraj, S. K. Shivaraj, B.C.Umapathy_HUF, B.C.Chandrashekar_HUF, B.C.Shivakumar_HUF, BSC Textiles, B.S.Channabasappa and Sons, Sri Amareshwara Industries, Sri Laxmi Industries, S.K.Veerbhadrappa & Co., S.K.Parik, Sun Irrigation Systems Pvt Ltd., Shri Tejas Sizers, Jathar Textiles Pvt Ltd., Balkrishna Sizing Industries, Vaanya Resources, Harshita Sales Corporation, Sridevi Trading Company, Sree Veerbhadreshwara Rice & Flour Mill and B. C. and Sons had approached the MERC seeking a trial/grace period to assess the challenges faced in compliance with the provisions of the Forecasting Regulation 2018 and amended procedure relating to scheduling and forecasting.

Petitioners had also prayed that penalty be levied for any deviation after the grace period. They had also prayed that penalty being imposed for any deviation should be applicable post trial period. These petitioners account for 42.80 MW renewable energy capacity.

While going through submissions made by all parties, the state electricity commission observed that all the stakeholders including MSLDC, STU and MERC DSM Working Group have taken all the necessary efforts to ensure commencement of commercial implementation of forecasting and scheduling framework.

Commission specified that merely on account of the delay in notifying the amended procedure, without going into the details of the efforts taken by STU, MSLDC and DSM Working Group, it may not be appropriate to conclude the procedural delay highlighted by the Petitioners as non-compliance of the Commission’s directions.

In its order, the MERC specified that the petitioners’ prayer for additional trial/grace period for implementation of the forecasting and scheduling regulations is rejected. MERC directed the DSM Working Group to undertake detailed scrutiny of the computation of impact of the State Periphery Charges vis-à-vis the requirements laid down under the procedure and the Regulations.

MERC specified that MSLDC must extend necessary co-operation to DSM Working Group and provide all the required data for undertaking analysis. The DSM Working Group will complete the analysis of the sample RE DSM bills already issued by Maharashtra State Load Dispatch Center within three months from the date of issuance of this Order and submit its report to the Commission.

From the date of issuance of this order, MSLDC will compute the impact of State Periphery Charges as per existing procedure, however while issuing the RE DSM bill to QCAs, only the RE DSM Charges at PSS level will be made applicable.

Based on the outcome of the analysis of the DSM Working Group, the commission will later decide the further course of action with respect to component of RE DSM State Periphery Charges already collected and to be collected in the future bills by MSLDC.

Recently, MERC directed MSEDCL to pay compensation to solar PV project developers in Maharashtra.