Projects, Energy & Infrastructure Monthly Newsletter | September 2024

LEGAL & POLICY UPDATES

Draft Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Guidelines for Procurement of Storage Capacity/Stored Energy from Pumped Storage Plants, 2024

• The Ministry of Power (MoP) has issued Draft Tariff Based Competitive Bidding Guidelines for Procurement of Storage Capacity/Stored Energy from Pumped Storage Plants dated August 22, 2024 (Draft Guidelines), and have proposed the following modes of procurement of power from the Pumped Storage Plants (PSPs).
• 1. Build-Own-Operate-Transfer Model (BOOT Model) from a PSP developed on a site identified by the Procurer;
  2. Finance-Own-Operate Model (FOO Model) from a PSP developed on a site identified by the Bidder or already commissioned.
• A key part of the bidding process is preparing a Detailed Project Report (DPR) as per the Draft Guidelines, which requires covering technical and financial aspects, including hydrological studies, geological investigations, environmental and social impact assessments, and cost estimates. The DPR is essential for evaluating the project's viability and competitiveness.
• The Draft Guidelines set strict eligibility criteria, requiring bidders to demonstrate financial and technical capabilities, with a proven track record in large-scale infrastructure projects, especially in the energy sector. Bidders must meet specific net-worth and turnover thresholds and showcase expertise in PSP or similar projects through past experience and qualifications.
• The Draft Guidelines aim to boost the role of PSPs in India's energy strategy by enhancing grid stability and integrating renewable sources. They are designed to attract both domestic and international investors, promote competition, and ensure high-quality projects by setting long concession periods and strict eligibility criteria.

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters) Regulations, 2024

• The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) issued the CERC (Deviation Settlement Mechanism and Related Matters) Regulations, 2024 (DSM Regulations 2024), replacing the previous DSM Regulations.
• The DSM Regulations 2024 introduce a revised method for calculating the Normal Rate of Charges for Deviation, which is determined by the highest value among the weighted average area clearing price from the integrated day-ahead market, the real-time market, or a combination of these, along with ancillary service charges.
• These regulations apply to all grid-connected entities and those involved in interstate electricity transactions. To ensure grid security and stability, all entities must follow their scheduled electricity drawal and injection. Any deviations from the schedule will be handled through ancillary services, with charges and processes laid out in the DSM Regulations 2024.
• Ancillary services refer to essential services that support grid operations by maintaining quality, reliability, and security, such as primary, secondary, and tertiary reserve services, reactive power support, and black start capabilities, as defined by the grid code.
• The DSM Regulations 2024 provide guidelines for calculating deviations in:
• 1. time blocks for general sellers,
  2. time blocks for WS Sellers, and
  3. time blocks for buyers.
• For sellers, deviation is measured as the difference between actual injection and scheduled generation, while for buyers, it is based on the gap between actual drawal and scheduled drawal.
• Deviation charges are detailed in the regulations and vary depending on the level of deviation and grid frequency. Special provisions apply to run-of-river (RoR) and municipal solid waste-based generating stations, where charges are based on a percentage of the normal rate or contract rate, not linked to grid frequency.
• Accounting for deviations will be managed by the Regional Load Despatch Centres (RLDC), which will provide deviation data weekly. By each Thursday, the RLDC will send data for the prior week to the Regional Power Committee's Secretariat, which will issue a statement of charges for deviations by the following Tuesday. Intra-state entities will not be accounted for at the regional level.
• The regulations prioritize the payment of deviation charges, requiring entities to settle their dues within 10 days of the statement's issuance. Late payments incur a surcharge of 0.04% per day. If an entity fails to pay charges from the previous financial year on time, it must open a letter of credit (LC) worth 110% of its average weekly deviation liability from the previous year. If payment is delayed beyond 10 days, the RLDC can encash the LC, and the entity must replenish it within three days.

Draft Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Threshold Limit for the Development of Intra-State Transmission Projects under the Tariff Based Competitive Bidding) Regulations, 2024

On August 29, 2024, the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) has issued the Draft DERC (Threshold Limit for the Development of Intra-State Transmission Projects under the Tariff Based Competitive Bidding) Regulations, 2024 (Draft Regulations).

The key highlights of the Draft Regulations include:

• The Draft Regulations mandate that all intra-state transmission projects with a cost exceeding ₹150 crores, excluding land costs, must be developed through Tariff Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB).
• Implementation procedure, stipulating that, projects exceeding the specified threshold, once approved by the Commission, must comply with TBCB guidelines and will be coordinated by designated Bid Process Coordinators.
• For projects of critical nature (e.g., Transmission System being developed for Defence, Railways, Airport, etc.) or those involving specific ownership complexities, the State Transmission Utility (STU) may opt for a cost-plus approach under Section 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003, provided prior approval is obtained from the Commission.
• The Regulations also empower the Commission to relax, amend, or issue directions, facilitating smooth implementation and addressing any arising difficulties.
• These Regulations aim to streamline the development of intra-state transmission projects in Delhi, ensuring a transparent and competitive framework.

RECENT JUDGMENTS

Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited V. Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP and Ors.

Civil Appeal Nos. 7595 of 2021, 7608 of 2021 and 6386 of 2021 (Supreme Court)

Background facts

• State of Karnataka introduced policy dated 26.08.2014 to identify and promote solar energy projects by land owning farmers. These solar power plants of 1-3 MW capacity would generate and sell power to the State DISCOMS at the tariff determined by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ld. KERC).
• On 29.09.2016, Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM/ Appellant) entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Respondent No. 2, Farmer, who applied under the policy and is recognised as a solar power developer and Respondent No.1 is a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to undertake the solar power project in Karnataka having Schedule Commissioning Date as 28.02.2017.
• Several farmers, including Respondent No.2, raised concerns regarding the delay in the execution of the project on account of the delay in getting land use conversion, evacuation approvals, demonetisation, and other reasons. Considering the same, the Government of Karnataka by a letter dated 24.11.2016 directed all DISCOMS to set up 3-member committees to examine each request for extension.
• However, on 05.04.2017, Ld. KERC directed that all requests for extensions must be filed before the Ld. KERC. Pursuant to this, the Respondents filed a petition before the Ld. KERC seeking extension of time for the commercial operation of the project.
• KERC by way of an order dated 18.09.2018, rejected the various causes of delay put forth by the Respondents stating that the delay in securing approvals is attributable to the Respondents and held that the force majeure Clause cannot invoked as Respondents failed to submit notice as per the terms of the force majeure clause.
• Respondents filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) challenging the Ld. KERC order. The Hon'ble APTEL by way of its order held that the Respondents had applied for approvals in time, however, considering certain documents had to be secured from various government departments, which is a laborious process, Respondents could not be blamed for the delay in getting approvals for land use conversion. The delay in the issuance of these documents, deemed conversion guidelines and the confusion among authorities regarding deemed conversion of land had also resulted in delay in obtaining land use conversion. The Hon'ble APTEL also held that the date of signing the PPA will not be the effective date, rather, the PPA becomes effective only when it is approved by the KERC. With regard to the reduction in tariff by the Ld. KERC, the Hon'ble APTEL considered that the government scheme, under which the PPAs were signed, was intended to create opportunity and benefit for farmers by establishing solar power plants. The farmers had invested huge amounts, sometimes through loans, in these projects and a reduction in tariff from Rs. 8.40 to Rs. 4.36 per unit would adversely affect the farmers. Hence, it directed the Appellant to pay the difference in per unit tariff along with the late payment surcharge as provided Under Article 6.4 of the PPA.
• Aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble APTEL, the Appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Issues at Hand

• Whether the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date was occasioned under the force majeure Clause of the Power Purchase Agreement?
• Whether the reduction in tariff payable to the Respondents was justified?

Decision of the Court/Tribunal

• The Hon'ble Supreme Court, before entering in to the merits of the case examined the scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (Act). The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the Act envisages the establishment of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission as expert and specialised bodies that discharge advisory, regulatory, and adjudicatory functions. Further, it establishes APTEL as an appellate body to hear appeals against orders of the adjudicating officers or the Appropriate Commission. Hence, while adjudicating an appeal under Section 125 of the Act, the Supreme Court must be mindful so as to enable a systematic and coherent development of electricity law by the Commissions and the Hon'ble APTEL. The requirement Under Section 125 is not merely a 'question of a law' but a 'substantial question of law'.
• In light of the submission made by the Counsels, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that that no substantial question of law was involved in the case, since the Hon'ble APTEL primarily decided a question of fact as to the attributability of the delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Hon'ble APTEL and held that the Hon'ble APTEL rightly restored the tariff of Rs. 8.4 per unit and directed the Appellant to pay the difference amount along with late payment surcharge.

HSA Viewpoint

The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of Section 125 of the Act is only limited to substantial questions of law and if payment of LPS is explicitly rooted in the PPAs, it need not be separately pleaded by the parties. This judgment upholds the importance given to the sectoral regulators under the Act and has recognised the technical expertise of the regulatory Commissions and the APTEL in decoding the matters under the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's consistent stand w.r.t the scope of Section 125 of the Act will bring uniformity in adjudicating the matters in second appeal.

Wardha Solar (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. & Others V. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Others

DFR NO. 32 OF 2024 & IA NO. 108 OF 2024 & IA NO. 110 OF 2024 of APTEL

Background facts

• The Appellants, Wardha Solar (Maharashtra) Pvt. Ltd. & Others, are solar power developers involved in generating and selling solar energy across various states in India.
• The Appellants entered into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with the Solar Energy Corporation of India Ltd. (SECI), wherein SECI agreed to procure solar power on behalf of multiple state distribution companies (Discoms). The PPAs contained a Change in Law (CIL) clause to protect developers from unforeseen legal or regulatory changes that would impact their costs.
• The Union government introduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and imposed a Safeguard Duty on imported solar modules, which increased the Appellants' project costs. These events triggered the CIL provisions under the PPAs, leading the Appellants to seek compensation.
• SECI filed a Petition (536/MP/2020) before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC), requesting approval for an annuity-based compensation methodology for the increased costs. The CERC, in its order dated 20.08.2021, determined the annuity rate at 10.42% per annum to compensate solar developers (Appellants).
• The Appellants challenged this annuity rate, arguing that it failed to account for their equity component and only covered the debt portion of their capital structure. They contended that the annuity rate should also reflect the return on equity (RoE), as per the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2017.
• Despite their concerns, the Appellants continued to accept annuity payments based on the 10.42% rate for over two years before filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Tribunal) on 18.01.2024, resulting in a delay of 836 days. The delay was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and the gradual realization of the inadequate compensation after the financial year 2022-2023.
• The Appellants sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal, invoking the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation due to the pandemic. They argued that the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 should reduce the delay.
• The Respondents, including SECI and the Discoms, opposed the delay and the appeal, arguing that the Appellants had ample time to assess the impact of the annuity rate and had accepted payments without raising objections.
• The Appellants' appeal challenges the CERC's decision on the annuity rate and seeks compensation for both debt and equity, with the goal of restoring them to the same financial position as before the CIL events.

The Tribunal, in DFR No. 32 of 2024 & IA No. 108 of 2024, made several important rulings regarding the condonation of delay and the merits of the Appellants' challenge to the CERC's order on the annuity-based compensation.

Issues at hand

• The main issues in this case revolve around the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the adequacy of the annuity rate set by the CERC. The condonation of the 836-day delay will determine whether the Appellants had sufficient cause for filing the appeal late, particularly given the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and their claim of gradual realization of the financial consequences of the CERC order.
• The second major issue pertains to the adequacy of the annuity rate of 10.42%, which the Appellants argue does not account for the equity component of their investment. This issue focuses on whether the annuity rate should include a RoE as part of the capital recovery mechanism under the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2017.
• Another issue is the restitution under the CIL clause, where the Appellants contend that the CERC's order did not adequately restore them to the same economic position as before the CIL events.
• Lastly, the acceptance of annuity payments by the Appellants over the two-year period before filing the appeal raises questions about their conduct and whether their delayed challenge to the compensation structure is justified.

Decision of the Court/Tribunal

• The Tribunal, in DFR No. 32 of 2024 & IA No. 108 of 2024, made several important rulings regarding the condonation of delay and the merits of the Appellants' challenge to the CERC's order on the annuity-based compensation.
• Firstly, the Tribunal ruled that the condonation of delay of 836 days in filing the appeal could not be granted. It emphasized that even though the COVID-19 pandemic period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded as per the Supreme Court's direction, the remaining delay of 687 days was inordinate and unexplained. The Tribunal noted that the Appellants had ample opportunity to analyse the financial impact of the annuity rate much earlier, and therefore, the reasons provided did not constitute "sufficient cause" for the substantial delay.
• Secondly, the Tribunal highlighted that the annuity rate of 10.42%, set by the CERC to compensate for the CIL (due to GST and Safeguard Duty), had been deliberated extensively in the original proceedings. The Tribunal found that the Appellants had been fully aware of the financial implications of the annuity rate during the CERC proceedings but chose to accept the payments for over two years without objection. Therefore, their appeal challenging the adequacy of the annuity rate was untimely and lacked merit in terms of delay.
• Lastly, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the Appellants only realized the inadequacy of the annuity rate after Financial Year 2022-2023. It concluded that allowing the appeal at such a late stage would undermine the statutory period of limitation and open the floodgates for other similarly delayed claims. The Tribunal emphasized that adhering to statutory timelines is crucial for maintaining legal and regulatory certainty, especially in complex, long-term contracts like PPAs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused to condone the delay, thereby upholding the CERC's decision on the annuity rate of 10.42% for compensating solar developers under the CIL clause.

HSA Viewpoint

The Tribunal's decision in DFR No. 32 of 2024 & IA No. 108 of 2024 emphasizes the necessity of adhering to statutory timelines in regulatory appeals, particularly in sectors like renewable energy where predictability is crucial. By refusing to condone a delay of 687 days, the Tribunal reinforced that even meritorious claims must be pursued promptly. The Appellants' continued acceptance of annuity payments over two years without objection weakened their position. This case highlights the importance of acting diligently to preserve legal rights and ensures that regulatory decisions, once made, offer finality and stability to all parties involved.

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited

Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission's (UPERC) Order dated August 6, 2024, in Petition No. 2087 of 2024.

Background facts

• UPPCL filed a petition with UPERC under Sections 63 and 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking approval of the tender documents for the procurement of 2000 MW of power from Pumped Hydro Storage Plants (PHSP).
• This initiative aligns with the Government of India's goal to achieve 500 GW of non-fossil fuel-based installed capacity by 2030. The petition included a Request for Selection (RfS) and a draft Pumped Hydro Storage Power Procurement Agreement (PHSPPA).
• UPPCL proposed a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for 40 years under a Build-Own-Operate-Maintain (BOOM) basis, ensuring 8 hours of energy discharge (with a maximum of 6 continuous hours per day).
• PHSPs operate by transferring water between reservoirs at different elevations, essentially functioning as rechargeable energy storage. Given the significant construction costs and ecological impact, UPPCL emphasized the necessity of long-term contracts for these projects.

Issues at hand

• Whether UPERC should approve the 2000 MW PHSP procurement process under competitive bidding?
• Can UPPCL's tender documents, including the RfS and PHSPPA, be approved with necessary amendments?
• Does the inclusion of preferential treatment for projects set up in Uttar Pradesh ensure compliance with competitive bidding norms?

Decision of the Court/Tribunal

• UPERC approved UPPCL's tender documents, allowing the procurement of 2000 MW of energy from Pumped Hydro Storage Plants (PHSP) through competitive bidding.
• UPPCL is also permitted to procure more than 2000 MW, up to 2750 MW, depending on the bid outcomes. The Commission recognized the necessity of such projects for meeting future energy demands and ensuring compliance with Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO).
• Several amendments were made to the tender documents. First, the Commission rejected UPPCL's proposal to replace arbitration with mediation for dispute resolution, citing the Electricity Act, 2003, which provides for adjudication of disputes by appropriate Commission or refer any dispute for arbitration.
• Furthermore, the technical capacity clause was revised to include experience in either thermal or hydro projects, broadening bidder eligibility.
• Other approved modifications included allowing ownership changes post-COD with prior consent from UPPCL.
• The Commission's approval supported UPPCL's long-term energy planning and emphasized the need for transparent and competitive processes to meet Uttar Pradesh's growing energy needs.

HSA Viewpoint

The approval of the PHSP procurement process is a significant development for Uttar Pradesh's energy landscape. The decision supports the state's ambitious goals to incorporate renewable energy into its grid while balancing the need for stable and reliable energy storage solutions. The rejection of UPPCL's proposed mediation clause highlights the importance of adhering to established dispute resolution mechanism. Overall, this case sets an important precedent for future renewable energy projects in Uttar Pradesh, ensuring that procurement processes remain transparent, competitive, and aligned with the state's long-term energy strategy.

Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd. V. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) Order dated September 03, 2024 in Petition No. 32/2024.

Background facts

• Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited (TPREL) had filed a petition under Section 86(1)(b) & (f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 before the Ld. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Ld. DERC) seeking an extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCOD) for its 255 MW Wind-Solar Hybrid Project.
• The request was primarily due to delays in the operationalization of the Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS) substations, specifically Koppal-II and Gadag-II, which were crucial for the project's commissioning.
• Initially, the SCOD was set for March 7, 2025, based on the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed on March 7, 2023. However, the readiness of the ISTS substations was projected to be delayed until December 2025, which was beyond the control of TPREL.
• In this context, TPREL argued that the delays were solely attributable to the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL), and thus, under Article 4.5.2 of the PPA, they were entitled to an extension.

Issues at hand

• Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCOD) from March 7, 2025, to a date 60 days after the readiness of the ISTS substations due to delays that are beyond its control.
• Whether the delays in the operationalization of the Long Term Access (LTA) and the readiness of the ISTS substations are solely attributable to the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) and not due to any actions or inactions on the part of the Petitioner.
• Whether the Petitioner has complied with all necessary application formalities and adhered to the procedures as stipulated in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and the relevant regulations set forth by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) to qualify for the requested extension.

Decision of the Tribunal

• After reviewing the submissions, Ld. DERC acknowledged that TPREL had complied with the application formalities and adhered to the regulatory procedures. The Commission concluded that the delays were solely attributable to the transmission provider, i.e., CTUIL and granted the requested extension of the SCOD.
• Ld. DERC noted that the substations would only be ready by December, 2025 and the emphasized that TPREL had acted in good faith throughout the process.
• The Commission also pointed out that this delay would impact the tariff and the supply of green energy to consumers in Delhi. The Project's delay could potentially deprive consumers of competitive priced green energy at INR 3 /kWh, the rate agreed upon under the PPA.
• Moreover, as per the Ministry of Power Regulations, wind and solar projects commissioned after June 30, 2025, would not benefit from the waiver of ISTS charges. Therefore, the delay could increase transmission costs if the project is not completed by the revised deadline.

HSA Viewpoint

The said Order passed by Ld. DERC is important as it underscores the importance of regulatory framework in facilitating renewable energy projects and addressing the challenges posed by infrastructure delays. By granting the generator, the extension of the Scheduled Commissioning Date (SCOD) due to delays in the readiness of Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS) substations, Ld. DERC affirmed that external factors, particularly those beyond the control of project developers, must be considered in regulatory decisions.

This decision not only protects the interests of renewable energy developers but also promotes investment in the sector by ensuring that unforeseen delays do not lead to punitive consequences. Furthermore, it sets a precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances, reinforcing the need for a collaborative approach to achieve timely project completion and enhance the overall efficiency of the energy market.

Shri. Harshad Sheth V. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission's (MERC) Order dated August 16, 2024 in Case No. 182 of 2023.

Background facts

• The said petition was preferred against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) challenging the validity of MSEDCL's Circular No. 30011 dated 20 December 2018 and the subsequent modifications.
• The Petitioner argued that the circular imposed unlawful conditions for the release of new service connections, including excessive land requirements and charges not aligned with the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission's (Ld. MERC) Supply Code and Standards of Performance Regulations, 2021.
• In this context, the Petitioner sought to quash these guidelines, claiming they were inconsistent with the regulatory framework and other distribution licensee's practices.

Issues at hand

• Whether MSEDCL's guidelines and subsequent amendments were contrary to the MERC Supply Code and Standards of Performance Regulations, 2021.
• Whether the land requirements and differential costs imposed by MSEDCL for new service connections were justified.
• Whether MSEDCL could continue enforcing guidelines that were issued under the previous Supply Code Regulations of 2005 after the enactment of the 2021 Regulations.

Decision of the Court/Tribunal

• Ld. MERC, after considering the contentions on behalf of the parties ruled in favour of the Petitioner, thereby, quashing MSEDCL's Circular dated 20 December 2018 and its subsequent modifications.
• Ld. MERC held that the requirements imposed by MSEDCL were excessive and lacked technical justification, and were inconsistent with the MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance of Distribution Licensees including Power Quality) Regulations, 2021.
• Further, Ld. MERC directed MSEDCL to undertake a detailed technical exercise to determine the appropriate land requirements for new service connections and issue new guidelines in accordance with the 2021 Regulations, with a report to be submitted within three months.
• Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed on the responsible officer for failing to comply with the Commission's directions during the proceedings.

HSA Viewpoint

Ld. MERC's Order is crucial as it addresses the need for regulatory alignment and standardization of guidelines issued by distribution licensees, specifically MSEDCL, under the MERC (Electricity Supply Code and Standards of Performance) Regulations, 2021. The order also emphasizes the importance of rationalizing the land and cost requirements for new service connections, ensuring these requirements are technically justified rather than arbitrary or excessively burdensome.

By quashing MSEDCL's previous circulars and mandating the creation of new guidelines consistent with current regulations, the order not only sets a precedent for fairer and more transparent practices but also protects consumers from unreasonable conditions. This decision is crucial in promoting uniformity among distribution licensees and reinforcing the regulatory framework's integrity, ultimately benefiting both consumers and the sector at large.

Guidelines for Development of Onshore Wind Power Projects and its following amendments dated August 23, 2024.

• Ministry of New Renewable Energy (MNRE) issued an Office Memorandum dated August 23, 2024, providing clarification to the amendment issued on July 04, 2024 to the "Guidelines for Development of Onshore Wind Power Projects" dated October 22, 2016.
• The Amendment dated July 04, 2024 was issued to enhance the micrositing practices. Effective from July 4, 2024, developers are required to optimize turbine locations using advanced wind flow modelling and tools to maximize energy production. The aforesaid amendment provides for maintaining specific distances between turbines (5D perpendicular and 7D in wind direction) and from public infrastructure (HH+0.5*RD+ 5m from roads, railways, buildings, etc.) to ensure safety and noise mitigation. The amendment further provides for repowering and intercropping initiatives, promoting efficient land use and optimized utilization of wind resources.
• In terms of the present Office Memorandum issued on August 23, 2024, MNRE has clarified that the above amendment shall now be applicable to future wind power projects, specifically those registered after the notification date by State Nodal Agencies (SNAs) or the date set by State Governments, whichever is later.
• It also states that the objective of the amendment is to ensure a smooth transition and continuity for ongoing project development by clearly defining its applicability to future projects only.

Office Memorandum updating the List 1 (Manufacturers and Models of Solar PV Modules) of ALMM Order, 2019

• The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy ("MNRE") on August 28, 2024, issued an Office Memorandum ("OM") with respect to the updated List-I (Manufacturers and Models of Solar PV Modules) of Approved List of Models and Manufacturers ("ALMM") under the ALMM Order, 2019.
• MNRE through the ALMM OM has revised List-I under the ALMM Order, 2019 providing the updated list of ALMM along with the details of the provisional enlistments granted by MNRE.
• Further, in terms of the ALMM Order, 2019, the ALMM enlistment validity is subject to valid BIS Registration, failing which the same shall be deemed to be delisted.

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) Circular for Grant of Green Open Access to consumers availing power from Renewable Energy with Green Attribute

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. ("MSEDCL") on dated September 9 2024, has issued detailed guidelines for granting Green Open Access ("GOA") to consumers leveraging renewable energy sources aligning with the MERC Distribution Open Access Regulations, 2016 and the Electricity Act, 2003.

The following are the key highlights:

• Access to Renewable Energy: Consumers can draw power directly from renewable energy (RE) generators through state transmission and distribution networks. GOA covers long-term, medium-term, and short-term access via intra-state transmission systems (InSTS) for sources like solar, wind, and biomass.
• Eligibility: GOA is available to consumers with a contract demand or sanctioned load of 100 kW or more, including those with multiple connections within the same electricity circle. Captive consumers benefit from certain demand exemptions.
• Expansion of Green Energy Definition: The term now includes storage technologies and government-notified mechanisms that use green energy to replace fossil fuels.
• Special Provisions: There are specific rules for captive users and those producing green hydrogen or green ammonia.
• Process and Oversight: The Central Nodal Agency has developed procedures and formats for obtaining GOA. The Maharashtra State Load Despatch Centre (MSLDC) and the State Transmission Utility (STU) manage short-term and medium/long-term GOA requests, respectively.
• Financial Exemptions and Charges: Exemptions from cross-subsidy and additional surcharges apply to non-fossil fuel-based energy, including waste-to-energy and green hydrogen projects. Banking charges are set at 8% of banked energy, with unutilized surplus lapsing at the end of each cycle. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) are available for lapsed energy.
• Updated Access for Lower Demands: Consumers with contract demands under 1 MW can access GOA, subject to specific metering requirements such as high-tension meters for high-demand and time-of-day meters for low-demand consumers.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.