Whether to mislead the citizenry/locals in the name of solar power plant is justified act .

Think about the gravity of situation that Solar power plant
which was to be commissioned  on
26/01/2015 i.e. Within 13 months from the date of agreement ,even after one
year facing cumbersome process and awaiting undertaking of work on the project
in order to complete it . Whether we are not being misled by public
functionaries.
M/s Moser Baer energy & Infrastructure Ltd. signed PPA for 20
MW solar
power on 27.12.2013, which has provision that plant shall be
commissioned
within 13 months from the date of signing of PPA i.e. 26.01.2015 .
Petition No. 1029 of
2015
BEFORE
THE UTTAR PRADESH
ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION
LUCKNOW
Date of Order:
14.01.201 6
IN THE M ATTER OF: To seek stay of operation of UPNEDA letter
dated 26.05.2015
issued to
petitioner for failing to commission 20 MW Solar Plant
by 2 6.01.2015.
1. M/s Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd.,
239, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase – III,
New Delhi 110019
2. M/s Hindustan Clean energy Ltd.,
239, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase – III,
New Delhi 110019
————— Petitioner
AND
1. Director,
Uttar Pradesh New
and Renewable Energy Development Agency,
Vibhuti Khand, Gomti
Nagar,
Lucknow.
2. Managing Director
, UPPCL
Shakti Bhawan,
14 Ashok Marg,
Lucknow 226001
Page 1 of 4
3. Indusind Bhank,
New Delhi Branch,
Dr. Gopal Das
Bhavan,
28, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi.
—————
Respondents
ORDER
(Date of Hearing 22.12.2015)
1. M/s Moser Baer energy & Infrastructure Ltd. signed PPA for
20 MW solar
power on 27.12.2013, which has provision that plant shall be
commissioned
within 13 months from the date of signing of PPA i.e. 26.01.2015 .
2. UPNEDA initiated encashment of BG as measure of penal action
against the
petitioner for failing to meet time li ne envisaged in the PPA.
However, the
petitioner obtained stay order from Hon’ble High court against
invocation of
BG by UPNEDA .
3. It was submitted by the petitioner M/s Spinel Energy &
Infrastructure Ltd. That it was earlier known as M/s Moser Baer energy &
Infrastructure Ltd. and thus holds full rights and liabilities of above PPA.
Further, it was also submitted
that petitioner no. 2 M/s Hindustan Clean energy Ltd. was formerly
known as
Moser Baer Clean Energy Ltd. and that it is the holding company of
M/s
Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd . The petitioner has
submitted details
regarding change of its name issued by the Registrar of Companies
(RoC).
Page 2 of 4
4. In the last
hearing the Commission directed the petitioner to submit up to
date details of
financial investments done in respect of land acquisition and
land acquired , with
a copy of their submission to UPNEDA and UPPCL each .
For this purpose
specific mutation of the land or registration of the land
Printed by Bolt PDF
(c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.
transferred in
favour of petitioner only will be considered. UPNE DA and
UPPCL to give their
comments on these submissions within 10 days of
receipt of
submissions from the petitioner.
In response, the petitioner made submission dated 19.12.2015 that
they have completed acquisition of 100.37 acres of land in village
Sup a,
tehasil Charkhari in District Mahoba . Regarding details of
financial
investments a CA certified statement dated 08.12.2015 is furnished
(as a
by the petitioner that shows that Rs. 70.34 Lacs have be en spent on
“land including advance and commission”
5. Further, in
response to written submissions made by UPNEDA during
hearing on
05.10.2015, the petitioner submit ted vide submission dated
09.12.2015 that it
was due to various unforeseen reasons and circum stances
beyond their control
as explained in the petition, the timeline provided in the
PPA could not be
met.
They further
submitted that they had achieved a conditional financial
closure on
02.09.2014 with Matrix for their site at village Bendo in Mahoba
District . The in
-principle approval for grid connectivity was obtained on
26.08.2014 which was
within 240 days timeline and later on 20.10.2014 the
connectivity
agreement was executed. But since the land could not be
acquired for reasons
beyond their cont rol the financial closure became
invalid.
Thereafter, the
petitioner approached IREDA for financing the project
and IREDA agreed to
fund the project subject to extension of SCOD. But
UPNEDA did not
respond to their request for extension of SCOD.
Further, the
petitioner identified new parcel of land and had executed
Page 3 of 4
MoU for 106 acres of
land also but UPNEDA refused to forward their request
for grid
connectivity to UPPTCL.
6. On the submission
made by UPPCL dated 03.10.2015 regarding amendment
for change of name
in duly approved PPA for the petitioner to invoke
provisions of PPA,
the petitioner submitted through submission dated
Printed by BoltPDF
(c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.
09.12.2015 that they
have no objection to executing an amended PPA,
however locus of the
petitioner cannot be challenged pending amendm ent to
PPA which at most is
mere formality that can be completed anytime
subsequent to name
change. It was also brought on record that Corporate
Identity Number
(CIN) of the petitioner remained same as prior to change of
name.
7. UPNEDA reasserted
that petiti oner have not fulfilled any of their obligation
under PPA. UPNEDA
also maintained that as per provisions of PPA
extension beyond 6
months cannot be granted for achieving commercial
operation and even
that has elapsed on 26.07.2015.
8. In the hearing
parties  acknowledged the fact that with
advancement in solar
technology capital
cost of solar projects is receding. It seems that one of the
reservations of
UPNEDA is also on this account as higher cost of power is
eventually passed on
to consumers. The Commission enquired from both the
parties how would
they like to address this concern and relook into the price of
power . Both the
parties agreed to revisit this issue and also revisit the modalities
of the agreement and
then come up to the Commission with an agreed proposal.
One has to keep in
mind the tariff benchmarked for similar projects coming up during the same
period .The commission allows one month’s time from the date of  hearing to both sides to discuss the matter
and come to the Commission with an
agreed solution.
9. Further, the
Commission directs the developer to submit its roadmap for
financial closure,
land acquisition and connectivity agreement to vindicate its
appeal for time
extension to complete the project.
10. The Commission
adjourned the hearing.
11. The next date of
hearing shall be fixed subsequent to submissions as above.
(S.K. Agarwal)   (Indu Bhushan Pandey)  (Desh Deepak Verma)
   Member                     Member                                 Chairman
Place: Lucknow

Dated: 14.01.2016

1 comment on Whether to mislead the citizenry/locals in the name of solar power plant is justified act .

  1. Think about the gravity of situation that Solar power plant which was to be commissioned on 26/01/2015 i.e. Within 13 months from the date of agreement ,even after one year facing cumbersome process and awaiting undertaking of work on the project in order to complete it . Whether we are not being misled by public functionaries.
    M/s Moser Baer energy & Infrastructure Ltd. signed PPA for 20 MW solar
    power on 27.12.2013, which has provision that plant shall be commissioned
    within 13 months from the date of signing of PPA i.e. 26.01.2015 .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: