Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) 70% of Wind generation is during the month of May to September of a year;

(b) Therefore, the proposed banking of six months would be for namesake as, in none of the cases (two six-month slots in a year), the wind generated in peak period (May to September) can be utilized in such banking period.

(c) During the peak period the wind generators are power sufficient and does not require any power from the grid. Therefore, excess power is banked with the licensee so that the same can be consumed at a later stage.

5.27 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in GUVNL Vs. Solar Semiconductor Power Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors (2017) 166 SCC 498 has categorically held that the State Commission cannot exercise its Inherent Power to amend/ alter terms and conditions of an agreement duly signed between parties.

F. Impugned Order also made applicable to Solar Projects in violation of Section 86(3) of the Electricity Act 2003 - Applicable to MGEPL 5.28The ESCOMs had filed their respective Petitions in relation to the WBA facility given to wind generators. The Respondent Commission while Judgment of A.42 of 2018 & batch issuing the Public Notice dated 13.05.2017 had also referred to the Petitions filed by ESCOMs to be in relation to Wind generators. The Respondent Commission while giving its reasoning for modification had also referred to Wind Generation in Para 13 of the Impugned Order. However, while passing the operative part of the Impugned Order the Respondent Commission has included Solar Projects and also reduced its annual banking facility. The said direction of the Respondent Commission mutilates Section 86 (3) of the Act as no notice was given to MGEPL who is solar RE Generator before the Impugned Order was passed. Also it is curious to see that even ESCOMs had not pleaded reduction of Solar Banking period, therefore, clearly the impugned Order is not sustainable in so far as Solar Generators are concerned.

Judgment of A.42 of 2018 & batch 6.46 The contention that wind generators are being allowed to function in the manner described above and that the same is causing hardship to Discoms is a mischaracterization of the issue at hand. The wind generators have no other option but to opt for banking facility owing to the seasonal nature of the generation patterns, which is beyond the control of the wind generator. Hence, by modifying the banking facility in favour of the Discoms, Ld. KERC has failed to promote the generation of renewable sources.

6.47 Further, for availing the benefit of banking, the wind generators are obligated to pay banking charges as specified by Ld. KERC. In the present case, the wind generators have been paying banking charges. Therefore, the Discoms are being compensated for use of the banking facility. Hence, it is incorrect to base the Impugned Order on alleged financial impact on Discoms.

6.48 On the other hand, the Ld. KERC has failed to analyze the burden on the wind generators, as the energy generated during peak wind season has to be sold at a lower rate (85% of generic tariff) and will have to be bought back from the grid at a higher rate during the low wind season, as opposed to being allowed to withdraw the energy it has banked. While the DISCOMS allege that the increase in the RE generators capacity has increased their costs, it is submitted that the implication on the generators at an individual level is beyond the alleged injury caused to the DISCOMS. Further, GIWPL ought to be protected because it has executed WBAs which crystallize its rights to avail the banking facility, whereas the DISCOMS concerns have been entertained without any basis.