Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment (per Hon'ble Mehta,J.) 29/05/2019

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners laying challenge to the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and Related Matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources), Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forecasting & Scheduling Regulations or the Regulations of 2017').

"(h) CERC means the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 76 of the Act;
(i) 'Deviation' in a time-block for a seller means its total actual injection minus its total scheduled generation and for a buyer means its total actual drawal minus its total scheduled drawal;
(n) 'Pooling Station' means the sub-station where pooling of generation of individual wind generators or solar generators is done for interfacing with the grid/transmission or distribution system: Provided that where there is no separate pooling station for a wind/solar generator and the generating station is connected through common/dedicated feeder and terminated at a substation of distribution company/STU, the sub-station of distribution company/STU shall be considered as the pooling station for such wind/solar generator, as the case may be;
9. By virtue of Regulation 3 of the Regulations of 2017, these Regulations are applicable to all wind power generators supplying power to the DISCOMs through open access or for captive consumption. Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 2017 defines role of Qualified Coordinating Agency (QCA) in the following terms:
"4. The Qualified Coordinating Agency (QCA) as defined at Regulation 2(1)(o) shall be nominated based on consensus and mutually agreed terms and conditions amongst the wind and solar generators. The wind and solar generators shall also inform SLDC to this effect. QCA shall be the single point of contact with SLDC on behalf of its coordinated generator(s) connected to a pooling station for the following purposes:

77. Petitioners' attempt, in our opinion, fails, that the above judgment in case of Central Power Distribution Company (supra) is distinguishable on facts and law. Learned counsel tried to draw a distinction by saying that the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was of thermal power, a traditional source of energy, whereas in the present cases, the generators before this Court are generating the electricity by wind energy, which is totally dependent upon the vagaries of weather.

78. We are of the firm view that, whatever may be the source of generating the power, the principle as far as power to levy charges or fine by whatever name called on account of deviation is concerned, they have been settled and shall remain unaltered. It is different matter altogether that it is for the Regulatory Commission to bear in mind the facts that in the case of generation by wind energy, the scheduling or forecasting may not be as accurate or flawless as in case of thermal power or other traditional mode of generation of electricity.