The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has set aside an order of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) dismissing a petition by a wind energy developer over repeated curtailments of its 120 MW project in Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

The Tribunal found merit in the appellant’s case, partly allowing compensation claims, and remanding other issues to RERC for detailed reconsideration within three months.

Background

Tanot Wind Power set up a 120 MW wind project in three phases between June and December 2015 after executing two power purchase agreements with Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam (JVVNL) in February and May 2015.

The project was commissioned with 60 MW on June 9, 2015, 14 MW on August 10, 2015, and the balance 46 MW on December 16, 2015. Soon after commissioning, the company began reporting frequent backing down instructions from the state load dispatch center (SLDC) despite the “must run” status granted to renewable generators.

The petitioner alleged that, from September 2015, the SLDC curtailed generation arbitrarily, resulting in significant revenue losses.

It cited technical issues on the transmission network, including a thermal scanning report dated September 14, 2015, highlighting serious defects on the 220 kV Ramgarh–Dechu line, over-voltage conditions, collapsed towers, conductor dislocations, and persistent line breakdowns.

On June 24, 2016, the collapse of the Chhatrail line resulted in outages that lasted nearly 48 hours. Tanot raised invoices for deemed generation and quantified losses, including a bill of ₹56.3 million (~$673,511.19) for curtailments and other claims exceeding ₹102 million (~$1.22 million).

It filed a petition before RERC seeking compensation, but the Commission on November 29, 2017, dismissed the petition after relying on the SLDC’s logbooks and records.

Tanot subsequently approached APTEL for relief.

The SLDC argued that it curtailed wind generation only for grid security reasons, such as high frequency, voltage fluctuations, and technical minimum requirements of thermal units. Tanot contended that conventional projects were running above technical minimum requirements and that its project was backed down without justification.

Tribunal’s Analysis

The Tribunal examined whether curtailments complied with the statutory framework, which recognizes renewables as must-run projects.

APTEL held that RERC failed to test each curtailment against clear parameters. It found that several curtailments imposed on Tanot did not meet this test. Specifically, it accepted the company’s claim for 31.77 million units (MU) of deemed generation, directing recovery of this loss from the SLDC, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam, and JVVNL in equal proportions.

However, the Tribunal remanded claims related to losses due to over-voltage and transmission outages, amounting to 9.34 MU and 22.37 MU, respectively, to RERC for fresh adjudication.

It directed the Commission to examine technical evidence, the SLDC’s curtailment records, and pass a reasoned, speaking order within three months.

Recently, APTEL set aside the RERC’s 2016 order that imposed an additional surcharge of ₹0.80 (~$0.0093)/kWh on open access consumers in the state.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.