Earlier the commission provided carry forward to the PCPCL for unmet RPO of FY 13-14 to FY 14-15 which were be met along with the RPO for FY 2014-15. PSPCL in its petition provided the status of its RPO compliance for FY 14-15 including for FY 2013-14, which is given in the table below:
PSPCL in its petition for carry forward of RPO cited various reasons for non-compliance of RPO. The reasons cited by PSERC were:
- Delay in the commissioning of the Project during FY 14-15.
- Financial constraints to purchase RECs.
- And also stated that it was due to factors beyond control of PSPCL and RPO targets being set by the commission are unachievable.
PEDA in its submission stated that PSPCL misconstrued the RPO targets fixed by commission, as RPO targets can be met through alternate channels and not only by way of RE purchases.
The commission in its order stated that it does not accept that the RPO targets were unachievable and that the shortfall in compliance was not out of control. The commission also stated that it does not accept the argument of alleged financial constraints of PSPCL and its inability to purchase RECs.
The commission also cited the APTEL Judgment which has issued directions to State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and Joint Electricity Regulatory Commission to enforce RPO, and Thus the Commissions are bound to enforce their respective RPO Regulations.
The commission in its judgement has provided the carry forward to FY 15-16 and has taken strict not for the Non-compliance of the RPO, directing the PSPCL to comply with the RPO obligations latest by 30th Dec 2015 and communicated that failing which further action as per Regulations may be initiated.
]]>
The Graph below shows the comparison between the tariffs defined by the PSERC and the Tariff of CERC (Central Electricity Regulatory Commission):
As it can be seen in the graph above that the tariff finalized by PSERC in previous years has remained in line with the CERC and that the commission has done the same for the current financial year also. The tariff for solar energy has reduced by close to 9%, while for wind and small hydro it has been increased by approx. 3.75% and 4.10% respectively.
The more details on the tariff order can be read here.
]]>The details of the tariff proposed by the commission are given in the table below:
A graph depicted below shows the tariffs determined by the PSERC over the years.
The tariffs determined by the PSERC over the years have been in line with the tariff?determined ?CERC. The PSERC has followed the same trend in changing the tariff (% Change in tariff) for different Renewable Energy technologies as carried out by CERC.?So it is expected that the PSERC RE tariff for FY 15-16, might be determined in line with the CERC RE tariff. .
The more details on draft RE Tariff can be read here. ]]>
The main features of the regulation are given in the points below:
- The solar rooftop system to be installed can be self owned system or a third party owned system.
- The solar rooftop systems shall be of Min. 1kWp capacity and Max. 1Mwp capacity with or without battery backup.
- ?The Discom shall offer the provision of Net Metering to the consumer who intends to install rooftop systems on first come first serve basis.
- ?A maximum cumulative capacity at a particular distribution transformer shall not exceed 30% of the rated capacity of the distribution transformer.
- The capacity of an individual rooftop PV system shall not exceed 80% of the sanctioned load of the consumer.
- The energy accounting and settlement will be done based on the reading of the bidirectional meters.
- The cost of installation of the bidirectional meters will be borne by the consumer and shall be maintained and installed by distribution licensee.
- Any energy credits of a consumer from previous months will be carried forward to next billing period and will be set to zero after the settlement period.
- The electricity generated from solar rooftop systems shall not be more than 90% of the total energy consumption of any consumer in a settlement period. No payment shall be made by the distribution licensee, beyond this limit.
- The quantum of energy consumed from the rooftop system will be considered towards the Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) of Distribution licensee if the consumer is not an obligated entity.
- The rooftop systems shall be exempted from payment of wheeling, banking and cross subsidy surcharge applicable under PSERC (Terms & Conditions for Intra-State Open Access) Regulations, 2011, as amended from time to time.
- The eligibility for availing benefits of REC mechanism shall be as per CERC REC Regulation 2010.
PSERC earlier notified its draft regulation and invited comments from stake holders and interested parties, following that the commission has finalized the regulation. The regulation seems to be a good sign for development of solar energy in the state as the PEDA (Punjab Energy Development Agency) has already announced its policy for rooftop solar energy systems.
The regulation can be accessed here.
The new amendment to principle regulation defines new RPO targets for the upcoming years. The details of the new RPO targets are as below:
The targets defined by the commission are as same as the targets being proposed by the commission in its earlier draft notification in March 2015.
The graph above shows the comparison of the Punjab RPO targets with the RPO targets defined in the National Tariff Policy. The total RPO target year-on-year, seem to be nowhere close to NAPCC targets, and when compared to NTP targets, Non-Solar RPO targets fall considerably short while Solar RPO seem to be on track to meet NTP target by 2019-20. It is more important to observe whether PSERC ensures strict implementation in the future, or allows carry forward like the other states are doing.
The order can be accessed here.
The new regulation proposes RPO obligation of 7.0% (4.5% Non-solar & 2.5% Solar) by 2019-20. The details of the proposed?targets (in %) are mentioned in the graphs below:
Punjab is among those few states that have taken strict action on RPO compliance by imposing heavy penalties on obligated entities, albeit most other states have allowed Discoms to carry forward their RPO to next FY. As can be seen from the graphs above, the state has proposed ambitious targets for Solar, which will meet the National Tariff Policy (NTP) 2006 Solar target set for 2019-20, albeit proposed Non-Solar targets are much lower. The proposed total RPO targets are also significantly lower than the targets set by NAPCC.
Apart from this the commission has also proposed some changes in the amendment. The commission has proposed new definition for the “obligated entity” which can be read as:
“‘obligated entity’ means the ‘distribution licensee(s)’, ‘captive user(s)’ of the electricity generated in a Captive Generating Plant and ‘Open access customer(s)’ which are mandated under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 86 of the Act to fulfill the renewable purchase obligation;”
Previous definition by the commission, did not include any consumer or licensee.
The draft can be accessed here.
The stern order given by PSERC on pending RPO of PSPCL can be read here. ]]>
The net shortfall of PSPCL RPO compliance was 7.1 % in Non-Solar and a staggering 36.5% in Solar. RPO compliance specified by the commission for FY 2013-14 was, 3.37 % for Non-Solar & 0.13 % for Solar, which PSPCL did not meet. RPO compliance for current FY 2014-15 is 3.81% in Non-Solar and 0.19% in Solar, much higher than previous FY. PSPCL stated several reasons for the shortfall, which the commission reviewed thoroughly.
The commission finally ordered Punjab Energy Development Agency (PEDA) to speed up development of some delayed RE projects, mainly Hydro, which was the main reason for the non-compliance of RPO by PSPCL.
Considering that some of the reasons for the non-compliance were beyond the control of PSERC, it has allowed the net shortfall to be carried forward to FY 2014-15, but has clearly stated that the RPO of FY 2014-15 along with previous year shortfall have to be strictly complied with by 31st December, 2014 or else heavy penalties will be imposed.
The details can be accessed here.
]]>
Brief Details of the approved Distribution Tariff is given below:
It is worth noticing that Tariffs have not increased much for general industrial consumers, while it has reduced by approx. 3% for large industries, and has reduced by more than 6% for Commercial category. The Commission has increased the MMC by 2.74% compared to previous year.
Open Access Charges:
The Transmission Tariff and SLDC charges approved is as below:
- The Cross Subsidy Surcharge for large supply industrial consumers has been calculated at 95 paisa/kWh, while the same for Commercial Consumer has been computed at 92 paisa/kWh.
- The Commission has determined Wheeling charges at Rs. 1.21/kWh, applicable for all categories of OA consumers. It is relatively high compared to other states.
- For Renewable Power (consumption within the state), the transmission and wheeling charges ?shall be levied at 2% of energy injected into the grid, while in case of wheeling of Renewable power outside the state normative wheeling and transmission charges shall be payable.
The Open Access Consumer shall bear transmission and distribution losses as given below:
The PSERC Distribution Tariff can be accessed here.
The PSERC Transmission Tariff can be accessed here.
Our Previous blog post on PSERC Net Metering Policy can be read here.
Contributed by Dheeraj Babariya.
]]>
The graph below shows a comparison between tariff’s of CERC and PSERC over last three years (note that the tariff of PSERC for FY 14-15 is proposed and not approved).
It is evident from above that the tariff of PSERC over the period is same as the tariff determined by CERC. So it can be presumed that the final tariff of PSERC for FY 14-15 could be same as tariff determined by CERC. It is worth noting that the tariffs for Wind and Hydro have been marginally increasing over the last 3 years, which is contrary to the trend for Solar.
For further details please refer here.
Contributed by?Dheeraj Babariya.
The commission rejected the request [DOC file]. Instead, it allowed PSPCL to carry forward the RPO to next year. PSPCL will now have to meet the shortfall this year in addition to the current year RPO (2.9%).
In our analysis, a few things stand out in the petition:
- PSPCL did not mention efforts to procure RECs from the market as a step it took to try and meet its RPO
- The commission did mention it as one of the steps it can consider to meet its RPO in the current year. The order states: ” This carry forward shortfall in RPO compliance during 2011-12 to 2012-13 shall be in addition to the RPO specified in the RPO Regulations for that year, to be made good separately for non-solar and solar power as specified by the Commission, through purchase/generation of electricity from RE Projects on best efforts or in case of non-availability of such electricity, through purchase of RECs from the Power Exchange(s)”
- It is unclear whether the waiver will also apply to open access and captive consumers. The order is specific to PSPCL, but this may open a way for a carry-forward for open access and captive consumers also
Overall, the order from the commission is in the right direction. Given the nascent stage that REC markets are in, it will be difficult to enforce full penalties due to non-compliance. However, waiver or retrospective change in RPO % would send a wrong signal to the market and obligated entities.