BEFORE THE UTTARAKHANDELECTRICITY REGULATORY

COMMISSION
REVIEW PETITION NO. OF 2018
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

IN THE MATTER OF:

Petition seeking review of Impugned Order dated 20.06.2018 in
Petition No. 04/2018 passed by the Uttarakhand Electricity
Regulatory Commission under section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act,
2003

AND IN THE MATTER OF

1. Distributed Solar Power Association
A-57, DDA Sheds, Okhla Industrial Phase II,
New Delhi - 110020

2. Amplus Solar Power Private Limited

Palm Square Building, 6th Floor,
Golf Course Extension Road,
Sector-66, Gurgaon, Haryana -122102

3. Asahi India Glass Limited

Unit No. 203-208,
Tribhuwan Complex, Ishwar Nagar
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065

...Petitioners
Versus

1. Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

World Trade Centre, Centre No.1
13th Floor, Cuffe Parade
Mumbai- 400005

2. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

Victoria Cross Vijeyta Gabar Singh Urja Bhawan,
 Kanwali Road, Balliwala Chowk,
Dehradun-248001,
Uttarakhand
...Respondents

The humble petition most respectfully showeth:

1. Specific Legal Provision under which the Petition is being

filed.

The Petitioners are filing the present review petition

challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the

Respondent No.1, Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Respondent Commission or UERC), in the

Petition No. 04/2018 filed by the Petitioners seeking relaxation

of the limit of 500 KW in respect of grid interactive rooftop

solar plants as per the UERC (Tariff and Other Terms for

Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources and non-

fossil fuel based Co-generating Stations) Regulations, 2013

(RE Regulations).

Since the passing of the aforementioned order by the UERC on

20.06.2018, a new set of regulations governing renewable

energy in the State of Uttarakhand has been passed by the

 UERC on 22.09.2018 i.e. the UERC (Tariff and Other Terms

for Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources and

non-fossil fuel based Co-generating Stations) Regulations,

2018 (RE Regulations 2018) whereby the earlier limit of 500

KW in respect of grid interactive rooftop solar plants has been

relaxed to 1 MW. A copy of the Order dated 20.06.2018 passed

by the Respondent Commission in Petition No. 04/2018 is

marked and annexed hereto as Annexure A.

2. LIMITATION

There is a delay of ___ days in filing the present petition. A

separate application seeking condonation of delay in filing the

review petition is being filed along with this petition.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

a) The Petitioner No. 1 is Distributed Solar Power Association

(DISPA), which is an association of solar power generating

companies. The primary object of DISPA is the development

of distributed solar power generation including rooftop solar

installations to ensure widespread growth of rooftop solar

 power in the country. Copies of the Memorandum of

Association and Certificate of Registration of the Petitioner

Association are marked and annexed hereto as Annexure B

(Colly.).

b) The Petitioner No.2 is a private limited company having its

registered office at the address mentioned above. The

Petitioner No. 2 is an Independent Power Producer focused

on development of distributed solar plants across India.

c) The Petitioner No.3 is a public company having its registered

office at the address mentioned above. The Petitioner No.3 is

into the business of manufacturing wide ranges of integrated

glass and offers end to end solutions across the entire glass

manufacturing chain.

d) The Respondent No.1 is the Uttarakhand Electricity

Regulatory Commission who has erroneously passed the

impugned order dated 20.06.2018. The Respondent No. 2 is a

generating company atat the sole distribution licensee in the

State of Uttarakhand.

e) The National Electricity Policy dated January 2012 was

issued with a special focus on creating an enabling

 environment for solar power generation. The key portions of

the National Electricity Policy, 2012 are set out below:

"The immediate aim of the Mission is to focus on setting up

an enabling environment for solar technology penetration
in the country both at a centralized and decentralized
level.....
Out of all the Non-conventional resources of power
generation, Solar energy is the most readily available and
abundant source of energy. India being a tropical country
with abundant sunshine, solar energy could be easily
harnessed for power generation....
The Mission will encourage rooftop solar PV and other
small solar power plants, connected to LT/11 KV grid, to
replace conventional power and diesel-based generators."

f) In line with the objective of promoting electricity generation

through solar power, the State of Uttarakhand has issued the

Solar Energy Policy for Uttarakhand, 2013 (Policy). The

objectives of the Policy are extracted below:

“Objectives of the Policy

The Uttarakhand Government introduces the Solar Policy-
2013 with the following objectives:
(a) Promoting green and clean power using solar energy to
reduce the dependence on conventional source of energy like
coal, gas and oil.
(b)Aims to target to set up 500 MW of solar power plants by
the year 2017.
 (c)To create and direct employment opportunities in the State
(d)To create conditions conducive to the involvement of
investors in RE projects.
(e)To enhance the use of solar energy source that assist in
mitigating environmental pollution.”

A copy of the Solar Energy Policy for Uttarakhand, 2013 is

marked and annexed hereto as Annexure C.

g) The Hon'ble Commission issued the UERC (Tariff and Other

Terms for Supply of Electricity from Renewable Energy

Sources and non-fossil fuel based Co-generating Stations)

Regulations, 2013. The relevant provisions of the Regulations

are set out below:

Regulation 35

(1) The technology specific parameters for determination of

generic tariff for Grid interactive roof
top and small solar PV plants shall be as below:
(2) [Roof-top Solar PV sources can be installed for injecting
into the distribution system of a licensee by any Eligible
consumer.
Provided, the maximum installed capacity of rooftop PV solar
power plant & small solar PV plant at the premises of eligible
consumer shall not be more than 500 kW.
(3) Injection from roof-top solar PV sources owned by the
Eligible consumer(s) or by third party shall be settled on net
energy basis at the end of each Billing period.
 Provided, such net energy shall not be more than 95% of the
actual energy generated in the said Billing Period.
Provided, where the net energy injected exceeds 95% of the
actual energy generated in a Billing Period, such excess net
energy (net energy - 95% of actual energy generated) shall be
paid at the lowest base slab of energy charges prescribed in
the Rate Schedule for the said Eligible Consumer.
(4) The tariff, as per tariff orders of the Commission, in
respect of the supply of electricity to the consumers by the
distribution licensee shall be applicable for the net energy
supplied by the licensee in a billing period if the supplied
energy by the licensee is more than the energy injected by
the roof-top solar PV sources of the consumer(s) or by third
party.
Provided that such eligible consumer shall, however, be
exempted from payment of monthly minimum charges or
monthly minimum consumption guarantee charges or any
other charges.
Provided further that no open access charges including
surcharges shall be leviable on such eligible consumers for
the captive use of power.
(5) If in a billing period the supplied energy by the licensee is
less than the energy injected by the roof-top solar PV sources
of the consumer(s) or the third party, subject to provisions in
sub-Regulation (3) above, the licensee would be billed at the
generic tariff as may be specified by the Commission for such
net energy supplied to it.”

h) The underlying principle behind the Policy and Regulations is

the promotion of generation of electricity through solar and

other forms of renewable energy. Initially, there was no cap

on the size of the plant and the maximum capacity allocation

in the UERC (Tariff and Other Terms for Supply of Electricity

 from Renewable Energy Sources and non-fossil fuel based

Co-generating Stations) Regulations, 2013 and has only been

introduced later through amendment. Since the passing of

the impugned order, Tthis limit has now been revised. Under

the new Regulations, the maximum installed capacity of

rooftop PV solar power plant & small solar PV plant at the

premises of eligible consumer shall not be more than 1 MW

and the maximum Rooftop Solar PV and Small Solar PV

plants installed capacity at any Eligible Consumer's premises

shall be upto a maximum of 80% of consumer's sanctioned

load/contract demand.

i) The Guidelines dated 26.06.2014 were issued by the Ministry

of New & Renewable Energy, Government of India (MNRE) on

Grid Connected Roof-top and Small Solar Power

Plantsrecognise that solar power is central to the growth of

renewable energy source. These Guidelines were referred to

by this Hon’ble Commission and on the basis of the capacity

limit under the Guidelines for availing the subsidy, the

Regulations were amended to impose a limit of 500 KW in

 respect of installed solar capacity for projects under net

metering arrangement [Ref. Proviso to Regulation 35(2)]. A

copy of the Guidelines dated 26.06.2014 issued by the

Ministry of New & Renewable Energy on Grid Connected

Roof-top and Small Solar Power Plants Programme is marked

and annexed hereto as Annexure D.

j) In 2015, this Hon’ble Commission issued the Statement of

Reasons for Draft UERC (Tariff and Other Terms for Supply

of Electricity from Renewable Energy Sources and non-fossil

fuel based Co-generating Stations) (Third Amendment)

Regulations, 2015 which makes reference to the Guidelines

dated 26.06.2014 for incorporating the cap of 500 KW on the

maximum capacity of the solar power plants. This limit of

500 KW was incorporated in the Regulations through an

amendment notified vide No. F-9(21)/RG/UERC/2013/689

(w.e.f. 21.07.2015). A copy of the Statement of Reasons for

Draft UERC (Tariff and Other Terms for Supply of Electricity

from Renewable Energy Sources and non-fossil fuel based

 Co-generating Stations) (Third Amendment) Regulations,

2015 is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure E.

k) While the MNRE had initially capped the maximum installed

solar capacity to 500 KW for projects which wanted to avail

capital subsidy due to limited funds and not on any technical

ground, later the MNRE altogether withdrew this subsidy

from commercial and industrial consumers vide notification

dated 04.03.2016. In the circumstances, the upper cap also

stood removed. A copy of the Notification dated 04.03.2016

issued by MNRE is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure

F.

l) In 2017, the MNRE has issued a Concept Note on

Performance based Incentive Scheme for DISCOMs for

expeditious development of Grid Connected Rooftop Solar

Power Plants (Concept Note) whereby the Consumer should

be allowed to inter-connect a rooftop solar PV system with

capacity up to 100% of its contract demand/ sanctioned

 load. A copy of the Concept Note is marked and annexed

hereto as Annexure G.

m) Aggrieved by the capacity limitation of 500 KW introduced

into the RE Regulations, the Petitioners filed petitions which

were dealt in Petition No. 04/2018 before the Respondent

Commission seeking clarity and relaxation of the size

limitation imposed under Regulation 50 of the RE

Regulationsto permit establishment of roof-top based solar

plants on net metering basis with capacity higher than 500

KW. Regulation 52 provides for the ‘Power to Relax’ provision

in the new RE Regulations 2018 including relaxation of the

nature of the relief sought by the Petitioners in the present

case.

n) On 15.05.2017, the Petitioner No. 2 executed a Solar Power

Purchase Agreement with Petitioner No. 2 whereby Petitioner

No. 2 would establish and operate solar power projects,

including grid connected roof-top solar power plants. A copy

of the Solar Power Purchase Agreement dated 15.05.2017 is

marked and annexed hereto as Annexure H.

o) On 30.06.2017, Petitioner No. 3 wrote a letter to the Chief

Engineer of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. regarding

approval of No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the Grid

connectivity of roof top solar power plant to be installed at

Asahi Company, Roorkee, Uttarakhand. A copy of the letter

dated 30.06.2017 is marked and annexed hereto as

Annexure I.

p) On 03.08.2017, the Petitioner No. 3 wrote another letter to

Executive Engineer of Uttarakhand Power Corporation

Limited regarding issue of NOC for the grid connectivity of

roof top solar power plant to be installed at Asahi Company,

Roorkee, Uttarakhand. A copy of the letter dated 03.08.2017

is marked and annexed hereto as Annexure J.

q) However, there has been no response to the multiple letters/

representations by the Petitioner No. 3. The authorities have

not granted the permission for establishment of the plant on

 account of the size-limit under the proviso to Regulation

35(2).

r) In these facts and circumstances, the Petitions were filed by

the Petitioners before the UERC seeking clarity with regard

tothe establishment of roof-top based solar plant(s) with

capacity of 3600 KW on captive consumption basis. The

sanctioned load for the plant is 9200 KVA and accordingly a

calculated grid interactive solar rooftop plant with a much

lower capacity of 3600 KW is being set up whereby the

energy that is generated will be consumed within the plant

premises.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

s) Accordingly, on 24.01.2018 the petitions were listed before

the Respondent Commission for hearing on the issue of

invoking the Commission’s power under Regulation 49 and

50 of the RE Regulations to amend or relax the capacity

restriction of 500 KW for setting up a solar rooftop plant. As

stated above, Regulation 52 provides for the ‘Power to Relax’

provision in the new RE Regulations 2018 including

 relaxation of the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioners

in the present case.

t)s) On 20.06.2018, the Respondent Commission passed the

impugned order without deciding all the issues raised by the

Petitioners and went on to decide issues that were not raised

by the Petitioners.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

u)t) On 22.09.2018, the Respondent Commission issued new

regulations – RE Regulations, 2018 – whereby in respect of

grid connected rooftop solar power plants Regulation 36(2)

provides for the maximum installed capacity of rooftop PV

solar power plant & small solar PV plant at the premises of

eligible consumer shall not be more than 1 MW and the

maximum Rooftop Solar PV and Small Solar PV plants

installed capacity at any Eligible Consumer's premises shall

be upto a maximum of 80% of consumer's sanctioned

load/contract demand. The relevant provisions of the RE

Regulations 2018 are set out below:

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

 “36(2).Roof-top Grid Interactive Roof-top and small solar
PV plants can be installed for injecting power into the
distribution system of a licensee by any Eligible consumer:
Provided that the maximum Rooftop Solar PV and Small
Solar PV plants installed capacity at any Eligible
Consumer's premises shall be upto a maximum of 80% of
consumer's sanctioned load/contract demand;
Provided that in case of Domestic Consumer, such
installed capacity of Roof Top and Small Solar PV Plants
shall be irrespective of consumer's sanctioned
load/contract demand;
Provided, the maximum installed capacity of rooftop PV
solar power plant & small solar PV plant at the premises
of eligible consumer shall not be more than 1 MW.”

A copy of the RE Regulations 2018 is marked and annexed

hereto as Annexure L.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

v)u) In the above facts and circumstances, being aggrieved by the

impugned order passed by the UERC, the Petitioners are

filing the present review petition.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

4. CAUSE OF ACTION

The cause of action for filing the present review petition has

arisen by virtueon account of the following events:impugned

order, which has been passed without considering or ruling

upon the prayers made by the Petitioners.

5. GROUNDS

A. This is a fit case for the exercise of powers of this Hon’ble

Commission to review the Order dated 20.06.2018 to the

extent thatsince it fails to consider whether an exemption/

relaxation of the 500 KW limit should be granted. The

impugned order is erroneous, flawed and liable to be set

aside, inter alia, because:

(i) The impugned order fails to consider whether an

exemption/ relaxation of the 500 KW limit should be

granted to the Petitioners, which was the main issue

raised by the Petitionersin relevance to the large non net

metered rooftop Solar plant. The impugned order neither

gives any reason nor any ruling on the issue of grant of

exemption/ relaxation.

(ii) The limit of 500 KW under the old regulations or 1 MW Formatted: Not Highlight

under the new regulations is completely arbitrary and

irrationalshould be relaxed in appropriate cases. The Formatted: Not Highlight

imposition of an absolute restriction based on the

 capacity of the roof-top solar plant and the failure to

grant exemption/ relaxation without any basis is

arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable.

(iii)(ii) The approach adopted in the impugned order is

contrary to the prevailing solar Policy. , which does not

contemplate any absolute limit on the installed solar

capacity of roof-top solar plants on net meteringbasis

dehors of the contract demand of the consumer and will

act as a roadblock to the achievement of the objectives of

the Policy.The grant of general or specific relaxation of

the plant size limit would be consistent with the

prevailing sectoral policy.

For these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside

and quashed and the exemption/ relaxation should be

granted in favour of the Petitioners.

B. It is a well settled legal position that a review petition is

maintainable and should be considered where any of the

 issues raised by the parties have not been considered or

decided in an order:

Mota Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 9

SCC 379
“3. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants, pointing Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
out to the various reliefs sought for in the writ petition and
referring to the grounds raised in the review petition
seeking review of the impugned order as well as the
written submissions said to have been filed on their behalf
before the High Court after taking leave, orally by the
learned counsel, that the High Court did not deal with all
the contentions raised by the appellants in the writ petition
and did not consider the grounds raised in the review
petition.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the can
satisfied the High Court ought to have disposed of the writ
petition dealing with all the contentions raised in view of
the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.”

C. In the present case, the main issue raised by the Petitioners –

i.e. the request for relaxation of the capacity limit in respect

of net metered solar plants – has not been considered and

ruled upon. The impugned order does not give any ruling in

respect of the request for relaxation nor does it offer any

reasons. In view of this, this is a fit case for review of the

impugned order.

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.59", No bullets or

numbering
C. It is a well settled legal proposition that in an original

proceeding, each and every issue has to be decided by the

court or tribunal. In this context, reference may be made to

the following judgment:

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.61",

Hanging: 0.39", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering
Udai Raj Singh v. Hari Ram (2008) 12 SCC 141 Style: A, B, C, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +
“4. The revisional authority did not consider the aforesaid Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
point raised by the appellants or for that matter any other Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
points raised on their behalf and disposed of the revision
in a somewhat curious manner. It noted the facts of the
case and the points urged on behalf of the two sides and
then abruptly gave the operative direction under the
heading order. There is no indication in the order why the
revisional authority deemed to uphold the appellate order
or why he accepted the case of Kedar and Badri in
preference to the pleas raised by the side of BaijNath..... In
review, the point with regard to the earlier suit, being title
Suit No. 658 of 1955 was specifically pressed but the High
Court brushed it aside by observing that since the suit
was dismissed for default there was no decision on merits
deciding the rights of the parties.
5. We are afraid, that can hardly be accepted as a proper
consideration of the consequences of the dismissal of the
suit between the same parties in regard to the disputed
land.”

D. Evidently, iIn the present case, the main issue raised by the Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.2", Hanging: 0.39",
Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: A, B, C, … +
Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" +
Petitioners has not been addressed or even ruled upon in the Indent at: 0.5"

impugned order. For this reason alone, the impugned order is

liable to be set aside and quashed.

D.E. The Order has been passed without giving any reason or Formatted: Not Highlight

any ruling on the issue of grant of exemption/relaxation of

the plant size limit. The Petitioners had sought specific

relaxation of the plant size limit as a condition for availing for

net metering. However, the impugned order does not consider

ir rule upon this request. The imposition of the 500 KMW Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
aggregate capacity limit will act as a roadblock to realizing the

full potential of solar power generation in the State. The 500

KMW limit does not take into account many crucial factors Formatted: Not Highlight

and should, therefore, be removed. This is a fit and

appropriate case for the grant of relaxation from the

limitation on plant size. Formatted: Not Highlight

E.F. The Petitioners had approached the UERC seeking general

and specific relaxation of the capacity limit in respect of roof-

top solar plants on net metering basis imposed vide the RE

Regulations. The impugned order has been passed by the

Hon’ble UERC without examining or addressing the issue of

exemption/relaxation at all. The impugned order is, therefore,

flawed and erroneous.

 Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

F.G. The impugned order explicitly records that the Petitoners

made prayers for general and specific relaxation of the

capacity limit:

“1.6. The Petitioner submitted that Regulation 35(2) of RE

Regulations, 2013 provides for the installation of rooftop
solar PV plants for injecting into the distribution system of
a licensee by any eligible consumer. Therefore, the size
limit under the said proviso would be applicable to rooftop
solar PV plants injecting electricity into the distribution
system of the licensee. Accordingly, the Petitioner
requested the Commission to clarify that the limit of 500
kW under Regulation 35(2) of RE Regulations, 2013 does
not apply to grid interactive rooftop solar power plants
established on the basis of captive consumption or
alternatively, pass a specific order of relaxation under
Regulation 50 of RE Regulations, 2013 permitting the
Petitioner and M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd. to establish and
operate a solar power plant of 3600 kW and also direct
UREDA/UPCL to issue NOC to M/s Asahi India Glass Ltd.
permitting them to establish a grid interactive rooftop solar
power plants of 3600 kW capacity.”

However, the impugned order delves into different and

distinct issues, but completely fails to deal with the issue of

grant of exemption/ relaxation from the capacity limit.

G.H. The Petitioners had made detailed submissions to explain

the reasons for grant of general or specific exemption in

respect of the 500 KW capacity limit, including:

(i) Capacity of solar roof-top plant is being limited to only

3600 KWp is being set up which is substantially lower

than the sanctioned/contracted load of the plant, i.e.

9200 KVA.

(ii) The plant capacity is specifically designed whereby the

energy that is generated will be consumed within the

premises without any excess generation of solar

electricity. Hence, there will not be any excess injection

of energy into the Grid.

(iii) The Petitioner No.2 has proposed to multiple checks to

ensure that there is no injection into the Grid and the

entire energy generated is consumed at the premises.

H.I. Given the overall contract/ sanctioned demand of the

consumer, establishment of a 3600 KW solar plant is very

reasonable and the entire energy generated thereat would be

 consumed at the premises. Based on the consumption

pattern, the plant is akin to a “captive” consumption plant.

Moreover, adequate systems have been put in place to ensure

that there is no injection of electricity into the Grid. In the

circumstances and especially taking into account the overall

sanctioned demand at the premises, this is a fit case for grant

of exemption/ relaxation from the capacity limit in the RE

Regulations.

I.J. In tThe impugned order, the UERC has proceeded proceeds in

a flawed and erroneous manner by completely ignoring the

application made by the Petitioners for general or specific

relaxation of the 500KW capacity plant size limit and delving

into extraneous issues. In particular, the impugned order

deals with issues regarding liability to pay open access

charges, wheeling charges, cross-subsidy surcharge and

additional surcharge [Ref. Para 3.5] – these issues were

neither raised nor argued before the Hon’ble Commission.

Hence, the Hon’ble Commission has committed a grave error

by rulingimpugned order is erroneous since it rules upon

 these issues even in the absence of their being raised in the

petition/ application. This is an error apparent on the face of

the record and the review petition deserves to be allowed for

this reason.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

J.K. It is a well settled legal position that the principles of natural

justice require a court/ tribunal to confine any rulings to the

issues raised by the parties on which arguments have been

addressed. In this context, reference may be made to the

following judgment:

Bacchraj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008) 17 SCC 491 Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
“8….A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The
court should confine its decision to the question raised in
pleadings.”

In the present case, the impugned order deals with issues

that were never raised and ignores the main issue regarding

grant of exemption/ relaxation. Hence, the impugned order

suffers from a grave error and is liable to be set aside.

K.L. The maximum installed solar capacity was capped at 500 KW

by the MNRE for projects which wanted to avail capital

 subsidy due to limited funds and not on any technical

ground. MNRE had imposed the cap due to limited funds and

not on the basis of any technical ground. The Regulations, on

the other hand, have wrongly imposed the cap of 500 KW on

solar power developers who want to establish solar power

plants on net metering basis. Hence, the restriction is without

any justification and an order of relaxation is fully warranted.

L.M. The subsidy and net metering are two completely

separate issues and should not be inter-mixed. Therefore, the

import of the restriction from the Guidelines dated

26.06.2016 in the RE Regulations is completely unjustified,

arbitrary and without any basis. This is another strong

reason for granting the exemption/ relaxation sought by the

Petitioners. The impugned order fails to properly consider this

aspect of the matter.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

M.N. Moreover, later on, the MNRE altogether withdrew this

subsidy from commercial and industrial consumers vide

notification dated 04.03.2016. Hence, there exists no reason

 or justification for the 500 KW limit as on date. In these

circumstances and taking into account the nature of the

Petitioner No.2’s project, the Hon’ble UERC should have fairly

considered the grant of exemption or relaxation from the

capacity limit.

N.O. The Concept Note on Performance based Incentive

Scheme for DISCOMs for expeditious development of Grid

Connected Rooftop Solar Power Plants issued by the MNRE

provides that the Consumer should be allowed to inter-

connect a rooftop solar PV system with capacity up to 100%

of its contract demand/ sanctioned load. In the present case,

as against a contract demand/ sanctioned load of 9200 KWA,

the Petitioner No.2 has sought net metering only for a plant of

3600 KW capacity. The plant is specifically designed whereby

the energy that is generated will be consumed within the

plant premises without leading to any excess generation of

solar electricity. Evidently, the grant of relaxation would be

consistent with the existing policy.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

O.P. The Regulations have been issued by the Hon'ble

Commission in exercise of powers conferred under Sections

61, 66, 86(1)(e) and 181 of the Act. The relevant portions of

these provisions are extracted below:

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Section 61(h)(Tariff regulations):

The Appropriate Commission shall, subject to the

provisions of this Act, specify the terms and conditions for
the determination of tariff, and in doing so, shall be guided
by the following, namely:-

(h) the promotion of co-generation and generation of

electricity from renewable sources of energy;

Section 66 (Development of market):

“The Appropriate Commission shall endeavour to promote

the development of a market (including trading) in power
in such manner as may be specified and shall be guided
by the National Electricity Policy referred to in section 3 in
this regard.”

Section 86(1)(e)

(1) The State Commission shall discharge the following

functions, namely: -

(e) promote co-generation and generation of electricity from

renewable sources of energy by providing suitable
measures for connectivity with the grid and sale of
electricity to any person, and also specify, for purchase of
electricity from such sources, a percentage of the total
consumption of electricity in the area of a distribution
licensee;
 Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

P.Q. Clearly, the manifest intention behind the RE

Regulations is the promotion of solar power generation in the

State. The provisions of the Regulations must, therefore, be

read and understood in this light. Moreover, the powers

conferred under the RE Regulations would have to be

exercised in a manner that best promotes this object. The size

restrictions imposed on the solar plants under the

Regulations should be relaxed in appropriate cases, subject

to appropriate checks and balances, with a view to promote

maximum solar power projects in the State. Such an

approach would be consistent with the prevailing policy. It is

well settled principle that the Electricity Regulatory

Commissions should follow and implement the sectoral

policy:

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited
v. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission
(09.01.2015 - APTEL)
“9. We have considered the rival submissions made by
the parties and have also gone through the reply filed
on behalf of respondent, the relevant part of which we
have quoted above. We find that the appellants
contention in this regard that the State Commission
proposed for the first time (unlike in the past in the case
 of the renewable power projects like wind, small hydel,
biomass, bagasse) the obligation of construction of the
evacuation facilities for the generating projects on the
appellants is quite wrong. The learned State
Commission in its earlier tariff order being Tariff Order
No. 1 of 2012 vide order dated 27.1.2012 had already
laid down that since the Solar Power Policy of 2009 of
the Government of Gujarat provides that the
transmission line from switchyard of the substation of
the megawatt-scale solar power plant to the GETCO
sub-station shall be laid by the GETCO. Hence, the
State Commission retains that the transmission line
from the switchyard of the generator to the GETCO sub-
station shall be laid by GETCO and the cost for the
same shall also be borne by the GETCO. For the
projects above 5 MW, the connectivity was provided by
GETCO and transmission line was laid by GETCO on its
own cost and for projects below 5 MW the connectivity
and transmission line was laid down by the discoms at
their own costs. Thus, it is clearly evident that the
GETCO/discoms have been laying the transmission
lines on various locations across the State of Gujarat in
compliance with the State Commission's aforesaid tariff
order for the Solar Power generators. The contention of
the appellant that the State Commission has for the first
time proposed for the obligation of construction of
evacuation facilities upon the transmission or
distribution licensees is wrong and the same does not
find support from the material on record.”

Q.R. The overall regulatory framework is also strongly in

favour of removing theagainst capacity limits on roof-top solar

plants that may be established. A vast majority of the States

have done away with capacity limits on roof-top solar plants:

(i) Odisha: The OERC by order dated 19.08.2016 laid down

that:

“(c) There is no cap on the capacity of solar installation at

a particular consumer level as long as it is within the limit
of the connected load /75% of transformer capacity. The
earlier restriction of 1 MW solar capacity at a single
location is removed.”

A copy of theOrder dated 19.08.2016 passed by Odisha

Electricity Regulatory Commission on Net Metering/Bi-

Directional Metering and their Connectivity with respect to

Solar PV Projects is marked and annexed hereto as

Annexure M.

(ii) Delhi: The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (Net

Metering for Renewable Energy) Regulations, 2014 provides

for installation of roof-top solar plants on net metering

basis above 500 kw and has no such restriction on the limit

of the installed solar capacity. A copy of theDelhi Electricity

Regulatory Commission (Net Metering for Renewable

Energy) Regulations, 2014 is marked and annexed hereto

as Annexure N.
 (iv) Tamil Nadu: Order No. 3 of 2013 dated 13.11.2013on Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

LT Connectivity and Net-metering, in regard to Tamil Nadu

Solar Energy Policy 2012 also lays down the capacity range

as above 112 KW which clearly indicates that there is no

restriction on the upper limit for the installed solar capacity

of roof top plants on net metering basis.

A copy of theOrder No. 3 of 2013 dated 13.11.2013on LT

Connectivity and Net-metering, in regard to Tamil Nadu

Solar Energy Policy 2012 is marked and annexed hereto as

Annexure O.

R.S.The regulatory trend, therefore, is to permit establishment of

roof-top based solar plants without any limitation on size or

capacity. A strong and flexible regulatory framework

incentivising the growth and easy installation of rooftop solar

plants on residential, commercial and government buildings

without any restriction on the maximum capacity allocation

would sub-serve the objective of the Policy. The Hon’ble

Commission should have considered the Petitioenrs’

 contentions in light of this position and the failure of the

UERC to evencomplete non –consideration of the Petitioners

plea for the grant of relaxation of the capacity limit under the

RE Regulations runs contrary to policy objective of promoting

solar power generation. This is a fit case for exercise of the

powers of the Hon'ble Commission to grant permission to

establish such plant in view of the overall policy objective.

S.T. Even in States where there is a plant size based limit for net

metering, the SERCs have considered and granted relaxations

in appropriate and justified cases where the contract/

sanctioned demand of the consumer is higher. Recently, the

Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission has passed

orders granting relaxation of the capacity of 1 MW in the

State of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant orders are extracted and

set out below:

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Order dated 10.09.2018 in Petition No. 1334/2018 Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", Line spacing: single
“2.The matter was heard earlier on 09.08.2018 and UPPCL Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.06", Tab
had asked for one week time to file their reply on the stops: 0.94", Left + Not at 0.44"

petition. The matter was heard again on 06.09.2018 and

the Advocate of UPPCL Sri Ravi Srivastava stated that
they have no objection if the Commission decides to relax
 the ceiling limit of 1MW in this case. The Commission
noted that the contracted load of the Petitioner is 5750KVA
and the Petitioner wants to install Roof Top Solar System
of 2 MW capacity at Railway Workshop in Lucknow The
Commission decided to relax the ceiling of 1MW and
allowed Northern Railway to install 2 MW capacity Roof
Top Solar System 3 The Petition is disposed of
accordingly.”

Order dated 10.09.2018 in Petition No. 1326/2018 Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.94", Hanging: 0.06", Line
spacing: single, Tab stops: 0.94", Left + Not at 0.44"
“3. DLW, Varanasi has got two connections from the
DiscomOne connection is for 5867 KVA for Workshop and
another connection of 2889KVA for the Colony. DLW wants
to install one RSVP plant of 1.2 MW for workshop load and
one connection of 850KVa for the Colony load The
Commission find that the RSPV plant of 850KV meant for
the Colony is below the 1MW ceiling therefore no
relaxation is required for this plant. However, for 1.2MW
plart related to Workshop there seems to be no objection
for granting the relaxation The objections of PUVVNL are of
general nature and keeping in view the broad objectives of
Rooftop Solar Scheme these objections cannot be allowed
to stop the permission for the proposed Roof Top Solar
Installation. Therefore the Commission decided to relax the
1MW ceiling for 1.2 MW Roof Top Solar Plant proposed to
be installed against the Workshop load under UPERC
RSPV Grid Regulation 2015.”
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Order dated 24.07.2018 in Petition No. 1317/2018 Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.94",
Hanging: 0.06", Line spacing: single, Tab stops: 0.94",
“3.The Respondent, NPCL submitted an affidavit dated Left + Not at 0.44"
26.06.2018 saying that it has no specific objection to the
prayer and vide letter dated 22.03.2018 it has already
Riven No Objection NPCL also affirmed that there is no
technical constraint in providing grid connectivity for the
proposed capacity NPCL asked the petitioner to provide
necessary facilities for communication and storage of data
and other parameters as stipulated in CEA (technical
standard for connectivity of the distribution generation
resources Regulations, 2010 dated 30.11.2013
 4. The petitioner agreed to comply with the requirement of
the respondent.
5. The Commission considering the above, decided to invoke
"power to relax under clause 16 of RSVP Regulations and
allowed the petitioner to set up roof top solar system of 2
35 MW (DC).”

Copies of the aforementioned orders are marked and annexed

hereto as Annexure P (Colly.).

T.U. The only justification that can exist for refusing to relax

the size/ capacity limit can be to avoid any situation of

arbitrage that would arise on account of installation of higher

capacity rooftop solar plants having very small

sanctioned/contracted load. These concerns or reservations

do not apply to plants that have a higher sanctioned load and

lower installed solar capacity as in the present case. Since the

justification for the restriction as explained above does not

apply to the present case, the Hon’ble UERC should have

granted the relaxation sought by the Petitioners.

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

U.V. Even otherwise, the restriction is only for rooftop solar

plants that contemplate injection of electricity into the grid.

 This is evident from the main provision, which is set out

below:

Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Regulation 35(2) of the old RE Regulations:

(2) Roof-top Solar PV sources can be installed for injecting

into the distribution system of a licensee by any Eligible
consumer.
Provided, the maximum installed capacity of rooftop PV
solar power plant & small solar PV plant at the premises of
eligible consumer shall not be more than 500 kW.

Regulation 36(2) of the new RE Regulations:

(2) Roof-top Solar PV sources can be installed for injecting

into the distribution system of a licensee by any Eligible
consumer.

Provided that the maximum Rooftop Solar PV and Small

Solar PV plants installed capacity at any Eligible
Consumers’s premises shall be upto a maximum of 80% of
consumer’s sanctioned load/contract demand.

Provided that in case of Domestic Consumer, such

installed capacity of Rooftop and Small Solar PV Plants
shall be irrespective of consumer’s sanctioned
load/contract demand

Provided, the maximum installed capacity of rooftop PV

solar power plant & small solar PV plant at the premises
of eligible consumer shall not be more than 1MW.

V.W. As per a logical interpretation, the size limit under the

proviso to Regulation 35(2) is only intended to ensure that the

 rooftop solar PV plants are linked with the contract demand

of the consumer and only inadvertent excess generation is

injected into the Grid. The Petitioner’s plant does not

contemplate any injection of electricity into the Grid and the

entire electricity generated will be consumed at the premises

only. The only reason for Grid synchronization of the plant is

the following:

(i) The premises at which the Plant is proposed to be Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

established are already connected with the Grid and draw

electricity supply from the Grid.

(ii) In view of the pre-existing connection of the premises with

the Grid, the Plant cannot operate as “Stand Alone

System” as it will be generating in parallel to the Grid.

This position has also been recognised in IS 14153:1994

dated August 1994 issued by BIS (Bureau of Indian

Standards).

(iii) IS 14153: 1994 also provides that generation from Grid

tied sources should not adversely affect the quality of the

existing power of the distribution system and should not

 endanger the safety of its operation. In order to ensure

this, it is critical that there are no mismatches in

frequency, current and voltage of solar generation from the

proposed plant and the Grid supply. The matching of

frequency, current and voltage will prevent the flow of

electricity from the PV System to the Grid and vice versa.

For this reason, the Petitioner No. 2 is using a Grid-tied

inverter in its solar plant.

(iv) The Grid-tied inverter senses the reference voltage, current

and frequency of the distribution sources, (Respondent

grid) and matches the frequency and voltage of the solar

generation from the proposed plant with the source (i.e.,

the reference voltage, current and frequency).

(v) Accordingly, the reference voltage has to be obtained from

the Grid. The standards prescribed in IS 14153:1994

dated August 1994 and IS/IEC 61683:1999 dated

February 2010 contemplate that even a stand-alone

system will have a Grid interface. Copies of IS 14153:1994

dated August 1994 and IS/IEC 61683:1999 dated

 February 2010 are marked and annexed hereto as

Annexure Q (Colly.).

W.X. Evidently, the Grid connectivity of the Petitioner’s plant is

only for the purpose of obtaining a reference voltage. No

injection of electricity into the Grid is contemplated. The

applicability of capacity limit under the RE Regulations to the

Plant is unreasonable since:

(i) There is no excess generation of electricity;

(ii) The entire electricity generated will be consumed at the

premises; and

(iii) No injection of electricity generated into the Grid is

contemplated.

X.Y. Hence and in view of the above, the capacity limit restriction

of 500 KW or 1 MW on the installed solar capacity is

unsustainable unjustified when it comes to a grid interactive

roof-top solar plant established for the purpose of captive

consumption. Taking into account the facts and

 circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of relief from the

capacity limit and the Hon’ble Commission may consider

granting the Petitioners’ prayer for relaxation that has not

been considered in the impugned order. The UERC Hon’ble

Commission has committed an grave error by not considering

the Petitioner’s case for exemption/ relaxation from the

capacity limit prescribed in the proviso to Regulation 35(2).

6. DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED

No other proceedings have been filed by the Petitoner in

relation to the subject matter of the present Petitioner.

7. RELIEF SOUGHT

In view of the aforesaid, it is respectfully prayed that this

Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:

(a) Set aside the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the

Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission

(b) Pass any other or further directions as this Hon'ble

Commission may deem fit and proper.

8. PARTICULARS OF FEE REMITTED:

Petition fee amounting to Rs. ____________/- (Rupees ________

only) is being deposited through Demand Draft

No.__________________ dated ________________ of

________________________ favouring ________________.

9. LIST OF ENCLOSURES

S. No. Particulars Page No. Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

1. ANNEXURE A Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Order dated 20.06.2018

passed by the Respondent Commission in
Petition No. 04/2018.
2. ANNEXURE B (Colly.) Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Copies of the Memorandum of Association

and Certificate of Registration of the
Petitioner Association.
3. ANNEXURE C Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Solar Energy Policy for

Uttarakhand, 2013
4. ANNEXURE D Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Guidelines dated 26.06.2014

issued by the Ministry of New &
Renewable Energy on Grid Connected
 Roof-top and Small Solar Power Plants
Programme.
5. ANNEXURE E Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Statement of Reasons for

Draft UERC (Tariff and Other Terms for
Supply of Electricity from Renewable
Energy Sources and non-fossil fuel based
Co-generating Stations) (Third
Amendment) Regulations, 2015.
6. ANNEXURE F Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Notification dated

04.03.2016 issued by MNRE.
7. ANNEXURE G Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Concept Note.

8. ANNEXURE H Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the Solar Power Purchase

Agreement dated 15.05.2017.
9. ANNEXURE I Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the letter dated 30.06.2017.

10. ANNEXURE J Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the letter dated 03.08.2017.

11. ANNEXURE K Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the letter dated 21.08.2017.

12. ANNEXURE L Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of the RE Regulations 2018.

13. ANNEXURE M Formatted: Space After: 0 pt
 A copy of theOrder dated 19.08.2016
passed by Odisha Electricity Regulatory
Commission on Net Metering/Bi-
Directional Metering and their
Connectivity with respect to Solar
PVProjects.
14. ANNEXURE N Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of theDelhi Electricity Regulatory

Commission (Net Metering for Renewable
Energy) Regulations, 2014.
15. ANNEXURE O Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

A copy of theOrder No. 3 of 2013 dated

13.11.2013on LT Connectivity and Net-
metering, in regard to Tamil Nadu Solar
Energy Policy 2012.
16. ANNEXURE P (Colly.) Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Copies of the aforementioned orders.

17. ANNEXURE Q (Colly.) Formatted: Space After: 0 pt

Copies of IS 14153:1994 dated August

1994 and IS/IEC 61683:1999 dated
February 2010.

VERIFICATION
I, Alok Verma, s/o Kashi Nath Verma, aged about 32 years, do

hereby verify that the contents of Paras _____-_____ are believed by

me to be true and correct based on the official records of the

Petitioner Company maintained in the ordinary course of business

and I have not suppressed any material fact.

____________________