Capping RPO

Capping RPO www.infralive.com 32 Infra LIVE August 15, 2019 Central Commission cannot keep the prices of RECs artificially high and burden the consumers with high costs of electricity. Moreover, if the prices of the RECs are kept artificially high without aligning them with the market reality and current cost of electricity, the obligated entities will not purchase the RECs and try to fulfil their RPO by other means. This defeats the mandate of Central Commission under Section 61 and Section 66.” IWEA filed Civil Appeal No. 4801 of 2018 before the Supreme Court challenging the above judgment of APTEL. The Supreme Court on May 14, 2018, admitted the appeal and directed that Interim Orders dated May 8, 2017 and July 14, 2017 would continue. The Supreme Court clarified that the Interim Orders will not apply to RECs issued on or after April 1, 2017. Thereafter, CERC issued the following directions in respect of RECs generated through non- solar renewable energy sources: r Trading in non-solar REC issued prior to April 1, 2017 shall be carried out at the floor price of Rs 1,500/MWh. The obligated entities / Power Exchanges shall deposit Rs 500 ie the difference between the floor price prevailing earlier, ie Rs 1,500/MWh and the floor price as determined vide order dated March 30, 2017 in Petition No. 2/SM/2017 (ie Rs 1,000/MWh) with the Commission in the Account number notified vide letter dated August 23, 2017. The issue related to GST on Rs 500 deposited with CERC shall continue to be governed in line with CERC letter dated February 26, 2018. r Arrangement as mentioned in (b) above shall be subject to the outcome of the Civil Appeal No. 4801/2018 in the Supreme Court. any case, the matter itself is going to be heard by the Appellate Tribunal on 17.07.2017 and that, therefore, we ought to stay our hands until the Appel- late Tribunal renders a final decision in the matter. 4) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we feel that there should be no problem if RECs were to be traded at the figures given previously. 5) That being the case, we now substitute our order dated 08.05.2017 by granting prayer (c) instead of staying the Appellate Tribunal's order. 6) With this modification / clarification, I.A. as well as appeal stands disposed of.” With the above order, the Supreme Court substituted its previous Order dated May 8, 2017 by directing that any Obligated Entities purchasing RECs at the floor price determined vide the said REC Price Determination Order shall deposit the difference between the earlier floor price and the present floor price with the Commission during the pendency of the Appeal No. 105 of 2017 before APTEL. Thereafter, on July 20, 2017, CERC issued the following directions to Indian Energy Exchange Ltd: i) trading in non-solar RECs shall resume and difference shall be deposited with CERC during the pendency of Appeal before APTEL; ii) deposit of differential amount shall be subject to the outcome of Appeal filed by Non-Solar association in APTEL; In the meantime, APTEL, in its order dated April 12, 2018, dismissed IWEA's appeal stating: “8.31 The Central Commission is responsible for balancing the interests of the consumers and the interests of generators. The Table-3: Auction results of Solar PV projects (June-2018) Bidders / Developer Capacity Tariff MW (Rs/kwh) SECI: 1,200 MW (ISTS-IV) Ayana Renewable (CDC Gr) 300 2.54 ReNew Power 300 2.54 Azure Power 300 2.54 Mahindra Susten 250 2.54 Avaada Energy 50 (350)* 2.55 *Avaada bid for 350 MW but won only 50 MW UPNEDA: 72 MW of 500 MW NTPC 20 3.02 NTPC 20 3.02 SuKhbir Agro Energy 32 (50)* 3.05 *Subhbir bid for 50 MW but won only 32 MW SECI: 680 MW of 750 MW (T-II), Rajasthan NTPC 160 2.50 Mahindra Susten 200 2.50 Hero Future Energies 250 2.50 Azure Power 70 (100)* 2.50 *Azure bid for 100 MW but won only 70 MW