Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission · M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd and 52...

of 42

Suo-Motu Petition No. 55 of 2016(M)

In the Matter of, "miscellaneous petition under section 142 read with

section 86(1)(k) of the Electricity Act, 2003, for non-compliance of

Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) by the respondents, for the Finance

Year 2014-15".

Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy

Development Agency (CREDA) … Petitioner

Versus

M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd

and 52 others …Respondent

PRESENT : Narayan Singh, Chairman Arun Kumar Sharma, Member

ORDER (Passed on 27th April, 2018)

The petitioner Chhattisgarh State Renewable Energy Development

Agency (CREDA), the nodal agency as per clause 6 of the

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable

Purchase Obligation and REC framework Implementation)

Regulations, 2013 (in short, the Regulations, 2013) for Renewable

Purchase Obligation (RPO) in the State, has filed the present

petition under section 142 read with section 86(1)(k) of the

Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) for non-compliance of RPO by the

respondents for the Financial Year 2014-15.

2. The nodal agency is entrusted with the job of accreditation and to

recommend the renewable energy projects for registration in the

State. The CREDA is also responsible for monitoring of RPO.

3. The respondents, who are 53 in numbers, are the companies

registered under the Companies Act and are captive users. They are

“obligated entities” as defined in Regulations 2 (XIII) of the

Regulations, 2013 and have to comply mandatorily with the RPO for

relevant year 2014-15 under the Regulations.

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission Irrigation Colony, Shanti Nagar, Raipur - 492 001 (C.G.)

Ph.0771-4048788, Fax: 4073553

www.cserc.gov.in, e-mail: [email protected]

of 42

4. The petitioner, in compliance of Regulation 6.3 of the Regulations,

2013, collects information from the obligated entities, Chief

Electrical Inspector (CEI), generating companies etc. to compute the

compliance of RPO target by the obligated entities.

5. The petitioner received detailed reports from CEI regarding captive

consumption and non captive consumption by the obligated entities.

These reports submitted by the CEI through letter dated 12.06.2015

for 41 consumers, through letter dated 18.09.2015 for 15

consumers and through letter dated 03.11.2015 for M/s Monnet

Ispat & Energy Ltd, Naharpali, Raigarh. Thus the CEI submitted

report related to 57 captive users.

6. The petitioner has further sent notices to all obligated entities who

failed to submit the compliance report for the FY 2014-15, for

submission of their RPO compliances. Put a large number of

respondents again failed to submit the RPO compliance report for

the year 2014-15.

7. The petitioner submits that there were total 62 obligated entities

existing in the year 2014-15, out of which 09 obligated entities have

complied with the RPO and the rest 53 have been made respondents

in this case for their non-compliance.

8. The Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) entrusts a duty upon the State

Commission to promote co-generation and generation of electricity

from renewable sources. Section 86(1)(e) the Act provides that:-

“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.”

9. According to the mandate of the Act, the Commission notified

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Renewable

Purchase Obligation and REC framework Implementation)

Regulations, 2013 (in short, Regulations, 2013) for a period starting

from 1st April 2013 and ending on 31st March 2016.

10. Under clause 4.3 of the Regulations, 2013, the obligated entities

are required to procure renewable power to meet out their

Renewable Purchase Obligation (RPO) as specified below:-

of 42

Minimum quantum of electricity to be procured by Obligated Entity

as percentage of total consumption

Year Solar Non solar Total

Biomass/renewable energy based co-generation

Other RE (hydel, Wind etc.)

2013-14 0.50% 3.75% 2.00% 6.25%

2014-15 0.75% 3.75% 2.25% 6.75%

2015-16 1.00% 3.75% 2.50% 7.25%

11. The respondents failed to fulfill their solar and non solar RPO in

prescribed percentage for the year and therefore, this petition was

initiated by the petitioner.

12. After filing of the petition by CREDA, the Commission issued notices

to the respondents with copy of this petition to the respondents with

direction to file their replies within four weeks. Some of the

respondents have replied the notice of the Commission and the

others have still not filed their replies.

13. Looking to the large numbers of respondents, we think it appropriate

to discuss the case of non-compliance of RPO by the respondents

separately for each of the respondents.

i. M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd.:-

(A) The respondent no. 1 M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd.

submits that according to the provisions of clause 8.1 of the

RPO Regulations, 2013, a captive user or open access

customers may fulfill it's RPO through Renewable Energy

Certificates (RECs) as provided in clause 4 of the Regulations,

2013. However, captive user or open access customers

consuming power in any year to the extent of RPO specified

under regulation 4.3 from fossil fuel based co-generation power

plant shall be exempted from RPO. Quoting this provision, the

respondent says that they have consumed 25.78 MUs from

their fossil fuel based co-generation plant as against their RPO

of 1.803 MUs. The respondent prays, looking to the facts for

dismissal of the petition against the respondent.

(B) After receiving reply, the petitioner CREDA was directed for

verification. The CREDA submits that though the respondent

M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd. is claiming consumption of

25.78 MUs from the fossil fuel based co-generation plant

against required RPO, which is much more than the RPO, the

of 42

respondent failed to furnish certified details of steam

generation and power generation from the Waste Heat along

with the certificate issued by the Boiler Inspector and

therefore, the information provided by the respondent no. 1 is

not complete.

(C) We considered the submissions of both the parties. Though

there is no reason to reject the plea of respondent that they

have consumed much more power than their RPO from their

fossil fuel based co-generation power plant and they are

exempted from RPO for the year, but CREDA's contention is

also right that the respondent has to submit the details with

the certificate issued by Boiler Inspector. We therefore, direct

the respondent no. 1 M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd. to get

certificate, if not got earlier, from the Boiler Inspector that the

boiler was run from the waste heat of their steel plant and used

in generation of power. This certificate must be obtained within

30 days and submit the details with the certified documents to

the CREDA. The CREDA is directed to verify the same and issue

RPO compliance report accordingly.

ii. M/s Bhagwati Power & Steel Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 2 M/s Bhagwati Power & Steel Ltd. submits

that they have already submitted RPO compliance report for FY

2014-15 with the petitioner on 17.06.2015. The respondent

no.2 submits that the company is having 6 MW capacity Waste

Heat Recovery Based (WHRB) and having capacity of 4 MW

Atmospheric Fluidized Based Combustion Boiler (AFBCB), thus

total 10 MW installed capacity power plant. According to the

respondent they have consumed more than 11.901 MU's out of

total generation of 41.59 MU's from their fossil fuel based co-

generation plant, against their RPO of 0.7141 MU's. Quoting

the provisions of clause 8.1 of the RPO Regulations, 2013, by

which, captive user or open access customers consuming

power in any year to the extent of RPO specified under

regulation 4.3 from fossil fuel based co-generation power plant

shall be exempted from RPO. The respondent prays, looking to

the facts for dismissal of the petition against the respondent.

of 42


verification. The CREDA submits that though the respondent is

claiming fulfillment of it's RPO, the details submitted by the

respondent is incomplete as it is not in accordance with the

prescribed format approved by the Commission. Further the

respondent has failed to submit certificate issued by the Boiler

Inspector, regarding WHRB operating during the compliance

period to prove that they have generated and consumed power

from fossil fuel based co-generation power plant. Thus,

according to the petitioner the respondent has failed to comply

it's RPO for the FY 2014-15.








the respondent to get certificate, if not got earlier, from the

Boiler Inspector that the boiler was run from the waste heat of

their steel plant and used in generation of power. This

certificate must be obtained within 30 days and submit the

details with the certified documents to the CREDA. The CREDA

is directed to verify the same and issue RPO compliance report

accordingly.

iii. M/s Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 3 M/s Mahendra Sponge & Power Ltd.

submits that RPO in their case, on gross energy consumption

as per the prescribed format amounts to 0.430 MU's in case of

solar RPO and 3.447 MU's in case of non-solar RPO. It is clear

from the compliance report for FY 2014-15 submitted by them

that the company has sold only 1.208 MU's infirm power to

CSPDCL. The power generated through the respondent's co-

generation plant i.e. WHRB amount to 27.980 MU's which is

higher than the actual RPO obligations. Referring Commission's

order dated 06.09.2016 in petition no. 72 of 2015(M), the

respondent submits that it has been decided that obligated

entities who have consumed power from their own co-

of 42

generation plant to the extent of RPO have duly complied with

the RPO, the respondent no.3 claims it's fulfillment of RPO and

request the Commission to quash the notice issued to them.



M/s Mahendra Sponge and Power Ltd. is claiming fulfillment of

it's RPO, the details submitted by the respondent is incomplete

as it is not in accordance with the prescribed format approved

by the Commission. Further the respondent has failed to

submit certificate issued by the Boiler Inspector, regarding

WHRB operating during the compliance period to prove that

they have generated and consumed power from fossil fuel

based co-generation power plant. Thus, according to the

petitioner the respondent has failed to comply it's RPO for the

FY 2014-15.














accordingly.

iv. M/s Real Ispat & Power Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 4 M/s Real Ispat and Power Ltd. submits

that they have consumed 67.99 MU's from their fossil fuel

based co-generation plant against their RPO of 8.74 MU's. It is

clear from the compliance report for FY 2014-15, the

respondent fulfills RPO and requests the Commission to dismiss

the petition against them.



of 42

M/s Real Ispat and Power Ltd. is claiming fulfillment of it's RPO,

the details submitted by the respondent is incomplete as it is

not in accordance with the prescribed format approved by the

Commission. Further the respondent has failed to submit

certificate issued by the Boiler Inspector, regarding WHRB

operating during the compliance period to prove that they have

generated and consumed power from fossil fuel based co-

generation power plant. Thus, according to the petitioner the

respondent has failed to comply it's RPO for the FY 2014-15.








the respondent M/s Real Ispat and Power Ltd. to get certificate,

if not got earlier, from the Boiler Inspector that the boiler was

run from the waste heat of their steel plant and used in

generation of power. This certificate must be obtained within




v. M/s Lafarge India Ltd.(Sonadih Cement Plant) :-

(A) The respondent no. 5 M/s Lafarge India Ltd. has filed reply,

according to which the respondent has already complied with

the statutory requirement of procuring REC for the year 2014-

15 and reported the petitioner through communicated dated

04.07.2015. The respondent has wrongly arrayed in this

petition. The petition is not maintainable against the

respondent. The respondent has submitted the details, certified

by a Chartered Accountant firm, regarding gross annual energy

consumption and RPO compliance report. According to data

given solar RPO was 0.0012 MU against which solar certificate

of 0.0020 MU procured and the non-solar RPO was 0.0100 MU

against which non-solar REC of 0.010 procured.

of 42

(B) According to the petitioner's data the respondent was required

to fulfill solar obligation of 0.0013 MU, but the respondent has

procured 0.0020 MU solar power and thus the solar RPO is

compiled by the respondent. The respondent was needed to

procure 0.0102 MU non-solar renewable power but respondent

has procured only 0.0100 MU non-solar power. Thus, the

respondent complied the solar obligation and there is a short

fall in non-solar compliance.

(C) We considered the data submitted before us by both the

parties. We observe that there is a negligible difference

between the data submitted by the petitioner and respondent

before us. It is also pertinent to note here that the petitioner's

data is also based on data submitted by the respondent either

before them or the Chief Electrical Inspector. Hence, there is

no reason to disbelieve the data, verified by a Chartered

Accountant, submitted by the respondent before us, with his

reply supported by an affidavit. Therefore, we conclude that

the respondent has fulfilled his RPO for the year 2014-15.

vi. M/s Lafarge India Ltd.(Arasmeta) :-

(A) The respondent no. 6 M/s Lafarge India Ltd has filed reply,

according to which the respondent has already complied with

the statutory requirement of procuring REC for the year 2014-

15 and reported the petitioner through communication dated

21st September 2016. The respondent has wrongly arrayed in

this petition. The petition is not maintainable against the

respondent. However the data submitted by the respondent

with reply supported by affidavit, are related to the year 2015-

16 and 2016-17, while the petition is concerned with the year

2014-15.

(B) According to the petitioner's data, captive consumption of the

respondent is 0.00 and solar and non-solar obligation are also

0.00. The non-solar REC procured as mentioned by the

petitioner is carry forward from previous year.

(C) We are unable to understand; when the respondent's captive

consumption was 0.00 in the year 2014-15 then why they are

made respondent in this petition. After considering the data

available on records, we conclude that the respondent no. 6 is

of 42

not required to fulfill RPO for year 2014-15 because their

captive consumption was nil in that year.

The petitioner CREDA shall take care in future that in

this type of cases the captive consumers need not be

impleaded as respondent, because it is unnecessary

harassment to a party which is not an obligated entity for a

certain moment of time.

vii. M/s S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 7 M/s S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. denied

all the averments made in petition in totality. According to this

respondent the averments are baseless and untenable in law.

According to the respondent no. 7 the company is having 5 MW

capacity Waste Heat Recovery Boiler (WHRB) based co-

generation power plant which uses waste gas produced from

it's sponge iron plant to generate electricity. This respondent

do not have any Coal Fed Boiler nor Biomass fed Boiler. The

respondent generate electricity solely through it's 5 MW WHRB

based co-generation captive power plant with the use of fossil

fuels. The respondent submits that they have consumed 15.41

MU's of power only from their WHRB co-generation plant,

hence he is exempted from RPO obligation as per the

provisions of the Regultions. The respondent prays, looking to

the facts for dismissal of the petition against the respondent.


verification. The CREDA submits that the details provided by

the respondent M/s S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. is incomplete

as it is not in accordance with the prescribed format approved

by the Commission. The respondent has failed to furnish any

proof that they have generated and consumed power from

fossil fuel based co-generation power plant. Thus, according to

the petitioner, the respondent has failed to comply it's RPO for

the FY 2014-15.



have consumed power only from their fossil fuel based co-

generation power plant and they are exempted from RPO for

the year, but CREDA's contention is also right that the

of 42

respondent has to submit the details with the certificate issued

by Boiler Inspector. We therefore, direct the respondent M/s

S.K. Sarawagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. to get certificate, if not got

earlier, from the Boiler Inspector that the boiler was run from

the waste heat of their steel plant and used in generation of

power. This certificate must be obtained within 30 days and

submit the details with the certified documents to the CREDA.

The CREDA is directed to verify the same and issue RPO

compliance report accordingly.

viii. M/s Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 8 M/s Sunil Sponge Pvt. Ltd. was not

present on the day i.e. 05.01.2017 when the matter was

heard. Due to non appearance, we have ordered that in

relation to this respondent, the case may be decided on the

basis of data available on records. As per data available, the

captive consumption of this respondent was 16.4911 MU's in

the year 2014-15 and therefore, the respondent was under

obligation to procure either 0.1237 MU's solar power or

certificate and 0.9895 MU non-solar renewable power or

certificate to fulfill RPO. Thus, this respondent was under

obligation to procure total 1.1132 MU renewable power

including solar and non-solar power.

The respondent no. 8 has filed reply to the notice on

23.01.2017 with affidavit of Shri Sanjay Nachrani a Director

and authorized signatory of the respondent company, with

request, by stating reasons for not filing the reply earlier, to

consider the reply before passing orders on merit. Though the

reasons given in the request letter for non filing of reply earlier

are not satisfactory, we take the reply for consideration looking

to the injustice that may be caused to the respondent, if the

reply is not considered.





prescribed format approved by the Commission. Further the


of 42

Inspector, regarding WHRB operating during the compliance


from fossil based co-generation power plant. Thus, according to

the petitioner the respondent has failed to comply it's RPO for

the FY 2014-15.

(C) We considered the data available on records as well as the

reply of the respondent. It is observed that in reply the

respondent submits that their own generation from WHRB

boiler was 10.30 MUs in the year 2014-15 and in total the

respondent generated 6.85 MUs more power than required for

compliance of RPO. Certificate of Boiler Inspector is also

enclosed. From the above data, it appears that the respondent

has complied with the RPO obligation for the year 2014-15.

ix. M/s Hi-tech Power and Steel Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 9 M/s Hi-tech Power & Steel Ltd. has not

made any specific statement regarding their RPO. However, the

respondent has submitted gross annual energy consumption

and RPO compliance report. According to the report the solar

RPO @ 0.75% of GEC was 0.52592 MU's and out of which they

have procured solar power 0.22406 MU's from their own

generation. Non-solar RPO @ 6% of GEC was 4.2033 MU's

against which the respondent procured 23.74694 MU's from

their own WHRB plant. The respondent has also submitted

certificate issued by Boiler Inspectorate.

(B) The CREDA has not filed any further submission on the data.

(C) From the above data, it appears that the respondent has

complied with the RPO obligation for the year 2014-15.

x. M/s Drolia Electro steel Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 10 M/s Drolia Electro steel Pvt. Ltd.

submits that the respondent is operating 11 MW captive power

plant from which 5 MW through WHRB and 6 MW through AFBC

Boiler. The respondent is also operating 0.2 MW solar power

plants. According to the respondent, it's solar RPO was 0.355

MU's against which 0.225 MU's was generated by their own

solar plant. Their non solar RPO was 2.843 MU's and their

WHRB boiler generated 23.364 MU's in the year 2014-15. In

of 42

total, the respondent has generated 20.391 MU's more power

than required for compliance of RPO.





prescribed format approved by the Commission. Further, the


Inspector regarding WHRB operating during the compliance


from fossil based co-generation power plant. Thus, according to

the petitioner, the respondent has failed to comply it's RPO for

the FY 2014-15.




WHRB power plant and they are exempted from RPO for the

year, but CREDA's contention is also right that the respondent

has to submit the details with the certificate issued by Boiler

Inspector. We therefore, direct the respondent to get


boiler was run from the waste heat of their steel plant and used

in generation of power. This certificate must be obtained within




xi. M/s Shivalay Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 11 M/s Shivalay Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd.

submit, that according to the provisions of clause 8.1 of the

RPO Regulations, 2013, a captive user or open access

customers may fulfill it's RPO through Renewable Energy

Certificates (RECs) as provided in clause 4 of the Regulations,

2013. However, captive user or open access customers

consuming power in any year to the extent of RPO specified

under regulation 4.3 from fossil fuel based co-generation

power plant shall be exempted from RPO. Quoting this

provision, the respondent says that they have consumed

of 42

11.267 MUs from their fossil fuel based co-generation plant as

against their RPO of 0.676 MUs. The respondent is generating

power only from WHRB and the entire power is utilized by

itself. The respondent prays, looking to the facts, for dismissal

of the petition against the respondent.


verification. The CREDA submits that the respondent failed to

furnish certified details of steam generation and power

generation from the Waste Heat alongwith the certificate

issued by the Boiler Inspector and therefore, the information

provided by the respondent is not complete.














accordingly.

xii. M/s ACB India Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 12 M/s ACB India Ltd. submits that their

solar obligation was 200.45 MWH and non-solar RPO was

1603.57 MWH, total RPO was 1804.02 MWH for the year

2014-15 against which the respondent purchased RE

certificates from Power Exchange India Limited. For solar RPO

201 and non-solar RPO 1610, total 1811 certificates have been

purchased. Total 1804.02 certificates are required to be

purchased against which 1811 certificates purchased by the

respondent. Additional 6.98 RE certificates shall be adjusted in

next financial year.

of 42

(B) The petitioner CREDA verifies that the respondent has

complied with the RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.

(C) As the petitioner has verified, we conclude that the respondent

has fulfilled his RPO for year 2014-15.

xiii. M/s Spectrum Coal and Power Pvt. Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 13 M/s spectrum Coal and Power Pvt. Ltd.

submits that their solar obligation was 73.27 MWH and non-

solar RPO was 586.20 MWH, total RPO was 659.47 MWH for

the year 2014-15 against which the respondent purchased RE

certificates from Power Exchange India Limited. For solar RPO

72 and non-solar RPO 582 total 654 certificates have been

purchased. Total 659.47 certificates are required to be

purchased against which 654 certificates purchased by the

respondent. The respondent assures that shortfall 5.47 REC

will be completed in the next financial year. The respondent

has submitted that they have complied 99.17% RPO.

(B) The petitioner CREDA verifies that the respondent has

completed 99.17% of it's RPO for the year 2014-15.

(C) As the petitioner has verified, we conclude that the respondent

has fulfilled it's 99.17% RPO for year 2014-15 and direct the

respondent to complete it's RPO for the year, if not completed

till the date, in next financial year 2018-19.

xiv. M/s Madhya Bharat Paper Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 14 M/s Madhya Bharat Paper Ltd.

submits that they are abiding industry since inception, but

due to past three years market condition the respondent has

become presently a sick company under the Sick Industrial

Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and an application

for the same is under process to BIFR. It is submitted by the

respondent that the unit has almost remained closed due to

change of raw material from Paddy Straw to Waste Paper

w.e.f. from 01.04.2015.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that no proof has been

submitted by the respondent to prove it's contentions. The

respondent has failed to submit any information regarding

RPO compliance for the year 2014-15.

of 42

(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties we direct the

respondent to comply it's obligation for the year 2014-15, if

not complied till the date, in the next financial year 2018-19.

xv. M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Hirmi Cement works :-

(A) The respondent no. 15 M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Hirmi

Cement works) submits that they have fully complied RPO. It

is submitted that the CREDA has not considered carry forward

surplus solar and non-solar power of previous year 2013-14

for the current year. It is also submitted that non-solar REC

procured in May 2015 against shortfall of the year 2014-15

and thus the RPO for the year was complied.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the compliance report as

filed by the respondent does not have the seal and signature

of a Chartered Accountant. The CREDA therefore, concluded

the respondent has failed to fulfill RPO for the year.

(C) We are of the view in this matter that report submitted by the

respondent cannot be rejected or disbelieved only on the

ground that it is not certified by a Chartered Accountant, if

could be verified otherwise. From the documents available in

record it appears that the respondent has fulfilled it's RPO

obligation for the year 2014-15. Hence, we conclude that the

respondent has complied with RPO.

xvi. M/s Ambuja Cements Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 16 M/s Ambuja Cement Ltd. has neither

filed reply nor present at the time of hearings despite given

opportunities, hence we are constrained to decide the matter

on the basis of data available on records.

(B) According to the petitioner's data, the respondent's

consumption was 233.02 MU and accordingly, the solar

obligation was 1.7477 MU and non-solar obligation was

13.9812 MU's. Against the obligation the respondent procured

0.3497 MU solar power and solar REC 2.844 MU for non-solar

obligation, no power procured by the respondent. However,

non solar REC procured for 12.536 MU's and thus there is

shortfall of 1.4452 for non-solar REC. According to CREDA the

of 42

respondent complied the solar obligation and there is a short

fall in non-solar compliance.

C. We considered the data available on records and observed

that the respondent could not fulfill the non-solar RPO for the

year 2014-15. However, the respondent has procured more

solar power/REC for it's obligation. The respondent has

procured 1.4461 MUs more solar power/REC against it's

obligation and there is a shortfall of 1.4452 MU in non-solar

obligation. The excess of solar obligation is approximately

equal to the shortfall in non-solar obligation. Looking to the

circumstances, it would be appropriate in our view to offset

the excess power/REC for solar obligation with the shortfall in

non-solar obligation. We therefore, conclude that the

respondent has fulfilled it's obligation for the year 2014-15.

However, at this moment we want to express our displeasure

towards the attitude of the respondent M/s Ambuja Cement

Ltd. and hope that they will improve their attitude in future.

xvii. M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. Rawan Cement works :-

(A) The respondent no. 17 M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd. (Rawan

Cement works) submits that for the year 2014-15 they have

to require solar RPO 1.826 MU against which their solar

generation was 0.84 MU, the shortfall in solar RPO was 0.986

MU's. After adjustment of excess RPO 0.0955 MU in previous

year 2013-14, the net shortfall was 0.8905 MU, which will be

met in FY 2015-16 as per Gadget notification no. 49/RPO-

REC/2013 dated 21.05.2013 clause no. 2. Non-solar RPO for

the year was 14.611 MU; they have not procured non-solar

power, but procured non-solar REC for 14.665 MU. Thus

excess REC 0.054 will be adjusted against meet shortfall of

0.20 of FY 2013-14. Balance shortfall of 0.146 will be met in

FY 2015-16.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the compliance report as

filed by the respondent does not have the seal and signature

of a Chartered Accountant. The respondent rectified the short

coming and filed duly verified by Chartered Accountant and

duly notarized document.

of 42

(C) We hold that the respondent has given proper data verified by

a Chartered Accountant. There is a shortfall of 0.146 MU's in

non-solar RPO. We direct the respondent to fulfill the RPO for

the shortfall by the end of June 2018, if not fulfilled earlier as

per assurance.

xviii. M/s Nalwa Steel & Power. :-

(A) The respondent no. 18 M/s Nalwa Steel & Power submits that

their solar RPO was 1.006 MU and non-solar RPO was 8.049

MUs for the year. WHRB own generation of the respondent was

62.271 MUs for the year and thus their WHRB consumption

62.271 MUs is much more than the total RPO 9.055 MU

(8.049+1.006). In support of WHRB power generation the

respondent submitted certificates from Boiler Inspectorate.

(B) The petitioner CREDA has affirmed the data given by the

respondent and submits that the respondent has complied with

it's RPO obligations.

(C) We conclude that the petitioner has fulfilled it's RPO for the

year 2014-15.

xix. M/s Uniworth Limited:-

(A) The respondent no. 19 M/s Uniworth Ltd. submits that the

respondent has electricity generator sets as stand-by for

emergency backup only to it's industry and the DG sets are not

connected to grid. The need of DG sets arises because of power

failure from the CSEB grid to cater the emergency load of the

plant. The Commission has exempted the respondent to fulfill

RPO for FY 2012-13 through order dated 20.10.2015 in petition

No. 88 of 2014(M).

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that according to respondents

own admission it could not fulfill the RPO.

(C) We considered the submissions of both the parties. There is no

reason to disbelieve the pleadings of the respondent. If the

respondent uses DG sets in emergencies and these are not

connected with the grid, the respondent is not required to fulfill

the RPO. The Commission has already ordered in a similar

matter in petition No. 88 of 2014(M) on 20.10.2015.

of 42

xx. M/s Jindal Steel & Power Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 20 M/s Jindal Steel & power Ltd. submits

that according to the provisions of clause 8.1 of the RPO

Regulations, 2013, a captive user or open access customers

may fulfill it's RPO through Renewable Energy Certificates

(RECs) as provided in clause 4 of the Regulations, 2013.

However, captive user or open access customers consuming

power in any year to the extent of RPO specified under

regulation 4.3 from fossil fuel based co-generation power plant

shall be exempted from RPO. Quoting this provision, the

respondent says that they have consumed their own generation

by WHRB 1203.37 MUs while their solar RPO was 19.19 and

non-solar RPO was 153.54 MU total RPO was 172.3 MUs. Thus

the respondent has fulfilled it's obligation. The respondent

through affidavit affirmed the data given.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the data given by the

respondent does not have the seal and signature of a Charted

Accountant.


reason to reject the plea of respondent, which is supported by

affidavit that they have consumed more power than their RPO

from their fossil fuel based co-generation power plant and they

have fulfilled their obligation according to the provisions of the

Regulations. If the data verified by Charted Accountant has not

been produced before the CREDA, the respondent is directed to

submit the same within a month before the nodal agency

CREDA for their satisfaction.

xxi. M/s Arasmeta Captive Power Plant (Sai Lilagar power):-

(A) The respondent no. 21 M/s Arasmeta Captive Power Plant (Sai

Lilagar Power Generation Limited) submits that they are

presently supplying power to Chhattisgarh State Power Trading

Company Limited. The RPO obligation applies to only

distribution licensee captive users and open access customers.

The respondent is a generating company having 86 MW

(2x43MW) coal based generating station. The question of RPO

Regulations being applicable on the supply by the respondent

to Chhattisgarh State Power Trading Company Limited does not

of 42

arise. The respondent does not procure electricity from open

access. The only consumption of the respondent is auxiliary

consumption which forms part of generation itself and is not

counted separately.

(B) The petitioner CREDA verified the above statement of the

respondent and observed that the respondent does not need to

comply with the RPO for year 2014-15.

(C) As the respondent stated and the petitioner verified, we

conclude that the RPO obligations do not apply to the

respondent's case. The CREDA is advised to take care in such

type of cases to avoid unnecessary prosecution.

xxii. M/s Anjani Steels Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 22 M/s Anjani Steels Ltd. submits that their

solar obligation was 0.619 MUs and non-solar obligation was

4.955 MUs. They are consuming their WHRB power about

26.264 MUs from their WHRB power generation. Thus they are

not required to fulfill the RPO from purchasing power or

procuring certificates as per provisions of Regulations.

(B) The petitioner CREDA affirms the data submitted by the

respondent and confirmed that the respondent has complied

with it's RPO for the year 2014-15.

(C) We considered the submissions of both the parties. We

conclude that the respondent fulfills it's RPO obligation.

xxiii. M/s Bharat Alluminium Company Limited (BALCO) :-

(A) The respondent no. 23 M/s Bharat Alluminium Company

Limited submits that they have complied 100% solar RPO by

purchase of 37,336 solar RECs. The respondent had also

purchased 33,333 non-solar REC certificates from Power

Exchange India Limited on 25.10.2017. After purchase of these

certificates, the respondent has fulfilled 12.5% of it's non-solar

RPO. The balance obligation for non-solar obligation is

2,65,358, which is to be fulfilled by the respondent. The

respondent describing it's financial status, requests to grant

time upto end of 1st quarter of financial year 2018-19.

of 42

(B) The petitioner CREDA submitted that the respondent has

complied with it's RPO for the year 2014-15.

(C) The petitioner's contention is not clear as to whether the

respondent has fulfilled it's both solar and non-solar RPO or it

fulfills solar RPO only. We observed that the respondent has

submitted that they have fulfilled solar RPO but non-solar RPO

is to be completed by the end of 1st Quarter of financial year

2018-19. Looking to the circumstances, we accept the

respondent's plea and direct him to fulfill it's RPO according to

the promise made by it in it's reply within the period asked by

them. We also hope that the CREDA will take care in future

before making submissions to the Commission, so that the

mistake occurred in this case is not repeated again in any other

case.

xxiv. M/s Shri Bajrang Metalics and Power Ltd, (TMT Division)

xxv. M/s Shri Bajrang Metalics and Power Ltd, (Tilda Division):-

(A) The respondent No. 24 & 25 M/s Shri Bajrang Metalics and

Power Ltd., TMT Division & Tilda Division both have filed their

reply separately but the contents of the reply are same in

nature. According to these respondents, the Commission

through orders in P.No. 98 of 2015 and P.No. 76 & 77 of 2015

already recognized the three units of these respondent

company as one entity and therefore after accumulation of data

of the respondent companies i.e. the single entity, both are

exempted from RPO as their own generation and consumption

from waste heat recovery based power generation was 160.527

MUs, which was much more than the RPO compliance (solar

RPO 2.106 + non solar RPO 16.845 total 18.951 MUs) of the

entity i.e. 3 units of the respondents.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that both the respondents failed

to furnish the certified details of steam generation and power

generation from waste heat along with the certificate issued by

the Boiler inspector regarding waste heat recovery boiler


generated and consumed from fossil fuel based co-generation

power plant. The petitioner submits that both the respondents

failed to comply their RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.

of 42


there is no reason to reject the plea of the respondents that

they have consumed much more power than their RPO from

their fossil fuel based co-generation power plant and they are




the respondent No. 24 & 25 M/s Shri Bajrang Metalics and

Power Ltd., TMT Division & Tilda Division to get certificate, if

not got earlier, from the Boiler Inspector that the boiler was

run from the waste heat of their steel plant and used in

generation of power. This certificate must be obtained within




xxvi. M/s Crest Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent No. 26 M/s Crest Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd.

submits that the power in respondent's plant is generated

through waste heat recovery boilers and Fluidized Bed

Combustion for its own consumption. The respondent has

already installed 100x3 KW solar power units. Such units or

such source of energy has been considered as renewable

source of energy by the Hon'ble APTEL in Appeal no. 57 and

54 of 2012. It is also pleaded by the respondent that as per

the judgment of APTEL, the definition of obligated entity would

not cover a case where a person is consuming power from co-

generation plant. So the respondent is not an obligated entity

and it is not obligated to fulfill RPO.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent failed to

furnish the certified details of steam generation and power



operating during the compliance period to prove that they

have generated and consumed power from fossil fuel based

co-generation power plant. The petitioner submits that the

respondent failed to comply their RPO obligations for the year

2014-15.

of 42








the respondent No. 26 M/s Crest Steel & Power Pvt. Ltd. to

provide necessary and relevant information to the petitioner

CREDA and also to get certificate, if not got earlier, from the






accordingly.

xxvii. M/s Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 27 M/s Gopal Sponge & Power Pvt. Ltd.

submits that the respondent is engaged in production of

sponge iron, MS Ingot and generation of power through WHRB

based power plant. The captive generation plant produces

electricity for respondent own use in the process of

manufacturer of sponge iron and MS ingot from the waste heat

recovery boilers. The generation in the relevant year was

20.75 MUs and their own consumption was 10.04 MUs. As the

respondent generates electricity as co-generation, they are

exempted from the requirement of RPO, under provision of 8.1

of the Regulations 2013.




the Boiler inspector regarding Waste Heat Recovery Boiler


have generated and consumed from fossil fuel based co-

generation power plant. The petitioner submits that the


2014-15.

of 42

(c) We considered the submissions of both the parties. Though




exempted from RPO for the year. Later, the respondent has

also filed the certificate issued by Boiler Inspector. We

therefore, decide that the respondent has complied with it's

RPO.

xxviii. M/s Vaswani Industries Limited:-

(A) The respondent no. 28 M/s Vaswani Industries Limited submits

that they are generating power by using steam from Waste

Heat Recovery Boilers. Their total power generation in the

year 2014-15 was 65.302 MUs out of which their own

consumption was 60.1824. Their solar RPO was 0.451368 and

non-solar RPO was 3.610944 MUs in the year. They have

procured 40.59148 MUs from WHRB which is 36.980536 MUs

more than their RPO.






have generated and consumed power from fossil fuel based

co-generation power plant. The petitioner submits that the


2014-15.

(C) We considered the submissions of both the parties. The

respondent has pleaded that they have consumed 40.59148

MUs from WHRB, which is equal to the total generation from

WHRB, which is possible. Though, there is no reason to reject

the plea of respondent that they have consumed much more

power than their RPO from their fossil fuel based co-

generation power plant and they are exempted from RPO for

the year, but CREDA's contention is also right that, the

respondent has to submit the details with the certificate issued

by Boiler Inspector. We therefore, direct the respondent No.

28 M/s Vaswani Industries Limited to provide necessary and

of 42

relevant information to the petitioner CREDA and also to get


boiler was run from the waste heat of their steel plant and

used in generation of power. This certificate must be obtained

within 30 days and submit the details with the certified

documents to the CREDA. The CREDA is directed to verify the

same and issue RPO compliance report accordingly.

xxix. M/s Vandana Global Limited:-

(A) The Respondent No. 29 M/s Vandana Global Limited submits

that they generated 95.23 MU from WHRB and as per the

CSERC order dated 21.05.2013 in petition No. 28 of 2012 and

P. No. 07 of 2013, WHRB power is considered as co-generation

and no RPO obligation is required.

(B) The petitioner CREDA, in reply, verifies the documents

submitted by the respondent and concluded that the

respondent has complied with it's RPO obligations for the year

2014-15.

(C) We, looking to the submissions of both the parties, arrive at

the conclusion that the respondent has completed with it's

RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.

xxx. M/s Topworth Steel Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 30 M/s Topworth Steel Pvt. Ltd. submits

quoting various provisions of the Act, Rules and also Orders

and judgments of the Commission and the APTEL, that the

power in respondent's plant is generated through WHRB and

Fluidized Bed Combustion for it's own consumption. It is also

submitted that the respondent has already installed 100x3 KW

solar power units. Such units and such sources of energy have

been considered as renewable sources of energy by the Hon'ble

APTEL in appeal No. 57 and 54 of 2012.

Despite the above submissions, the respondent has not given

detailed data and required documents in support of the

statement made above. It is pertinent to mention here that the

petitioner has filed petition against the respondent on the basis

of non submission of RPO compliance report for the year 2014-

15.

of 42

(B) The petitioner CREDA, in reply, submits that though the

respondent claims exemption from RPO obligations in it's reply

dated 04.11.2016, the respondent has failed to furnish the

certified details of steam generation and power generation from

waste heat along with the certificate issued by the Boiler

inspector regarding Waste Heat Recovery Boiler operating

during the compliance period to prove that they have


power plant. The petitioner submits that the respondent failed

to comply their RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.

(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties, we decide that

the respondent has failed to provide details as required to the

nodal agency as well as the Commission during the proceeding

of this petition. Hence, we direct the respondent to submit the

details with affidavit to the petitioner nodal agency within 30

days stating the reasons for non-filing the details earlier. Any

shortfall in RPO compliance must be fulfilled by purchasing RE

certificates by the end of June 2018. We also warn the

respondent if they fail in future in compliance of the RPO

including the submission of proper data and certificates to the

nodal agency, we will take strict action and impose penalty

upon him for such non-compliance.

xxxi. M/s Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 31 M/s Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. has

neither filed reply nor was present at the time of hearings

despite given opportunities, hence we are constrained to

decide the matter on the basis of data available on records.

It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed

petition against the respondent on the basis of non

submission of RPO compliance report for the year 2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent has not

filed reply till date and therefore the petitioner is not in a

position to verify the data of the respondent. The petitioner

prays to declare that the respondent has failed to fulfill it's

RPO obligation for the year 2014-15.

(C) Looking to the respondent's attitude and petitioner's

submissions, we have gone through the file. We observe that

of 42

a letter No. 1244 dated 03.11.2015 of the Chief Electrical

Inspector is on record. Through this letter, CEI has given

details available with them regarding captive consumption of

the respondent to the petitioner. From there details, it is

observed that the respondent owns 2 MW capacity solar

power plant. The plant generated 3.30 MU power in the year

2014-15 out of which 0.03 MU was their auxiliary

consumption and 3.27 was their net generation and the total

power of net generation was sold to the distribution licensee.

As there was no captive consumption observed, the

respondent is not liable for fulfillment of RPO.

From the above observation it appears that the petitioner has

not properly scrutinized the details submitted by the CEI to it

and therefore, this position emerges. We direct the CREDA to

ensure, before filing petition in future, whether the entity has

consumed power either from CPP or taken power through

open access and thereafter, keeping in view the quantum of

captive consumption or power taken from open access,

enquire against the entity and thereafter, if required initiate

proceedings against the entity.

We also express our displeasure towards the attitude of the

respondent M/s Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd. They have to

reply to the notice issued by the Commission and put the

factual position before the Commission, as the Commission is

a quasi judicial authority.

xxxii. M/s Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 32 M/s Monnet Ispat & Energy Limited

submits that for the year 2014-15 their RPO obligation was

19.1163 MUs including 2.1240 solar RPO and 16.9923 MU non-

solar RPO. The respondent consumed 131.8836 MUs through

it's co-generation plant i.e. WHRB plant, which is more than the

required actual RPO obligation.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submitted in reply that claim of

exemption of respondent vide Commission's order dated

22.10.2016 is not proper as the said exemption has been

granted only to the Raigarh plant. It is further submitted that

the respondent has failed to furnish any proof that they have

of 42

consumed power from fossil based co-generation power plant.

The information submitted by the respondent is not complete.

(C) Considering arguments of both the parties, we could not agree

with the petitioner contentions that through order dated

22.10.2016 the Commission exempted only the Raigarh plant

of the respondent company. The data submitted with the reply

shows that the respondent has fulfilled it's RPO in the year

2014-15. We conclude accordingly.

xxxiii. M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 33 M/s M.S.P. Steel & Power Limited

submits that for the year 2014-15 their RPO obligation of

solar energy was 1.70 MU and non-solar RPO was 17.83 MUs.

The WHRB generation from their own plant was 124.40 MUs.

From this WHRB generation some powers they have supplied to

their sister concern M/s MSP Sponge Iron Limited. According to

the data submitted they consumed more 89.63 MUs after

fulfillment of their solar and non-solar RPO.

(B) The petitioner CREDA, in reply, submits though the respondent

claims exemption from RPO obligations in it's reply dated

25.11.2016, the respondent has failed to furnish the certified

details of steam generation and power generation from waste

heat along with the certificate issued by the Boiler inspector

regarding Waste Heat Recovery Boiler operating during the

compliance period to prove that they have generated and

consumed from fossil fuel based co-generation power plant.

The petitioner submits that the respondent failed to comply

their RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.

(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties, we observe

some mismatch in data given with reply; however, it is prima

facie apparent that the company is not obligated entity under

RPO. It appears from the record that the respondent has failed

to provide details as required to the nodal agency as well as

the Commission during the proceedings of this petition. Hence,

we direct the respondent to submit the details with affidavit to

the petitioner nodal agency within 30 days stating the reasons

for non-filing the details earlier. Any shortfall in RPO

compliance must be fulfilled by purchasing RE certificates by

of 42

the end of June 2018. We also warn the respondent if they fail

in future in compliance of the RPO including the submission of

proper data and certificates to the nodal agency, we will take

strict action and impose penalty upon him for such non-

compliance.

xxxiv. M/s M.S.P. Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 34 M/s M.S.P. Sponge Iron Pvt. Limited

submits that for the year 2014-15 their RPO obligation of

solar energy was 1.163 MU and non-solar RPO was 8.144 MUs.

They have procured 21.10 MUs WHRB power and 4.87 MUs

biomass based power total 25.97 MUs RE power from their

sister concern M/s MSP Steel & Power Ltd. According to the

data submitted they consumed 17.83 MUs more after

fulfillment of their solar and non-solar RPO.











(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties, we observe

prima facie that the respondent has procured more RE power

then his RPO. However, it appears from the record that the

respondent has failed to provide details, as required, to the

nodal agency as well as the Commission during the

proceedings of this petition. Hence, we direct the respondent to

submit the details with affidavit to the petitioner nodal agency

within 30 days stating the reasons for non-filing the details

earlier. Any shortfall in RPO compliance must be fulfilled by

purchasing RE certificates by the end of June 2018. We also

warn the respondent if they fail in future in compliance of the

RPO including the submission of proper data and certificates to

of 42

the nodal agency, we will take strict action and impose penalty

on them for such non-compliance.

xxxv. M/s Rashmi Sponge Iron & Power Industries Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 35 M/s Rashmi Sponge Iron & Power

Industries Ltd. submits that they have capacity of about 4 MW

WHRB and 4 MW AFBC captive power plant. During the

relevant financial year 2014-15 they have generated the power

only from their 4 MW WHRB boiler and not from 4 MW AFBC

boiler and same was used in their home consumption i.e.

captive use. It is pleaded that according to the Hon'ble APTEL's

judgments in appeal No. 57 of 2009, 54 of 2012 and 59 of

2012, the definition of the obligated entity would not cover a

case where a person is consuming power from co-generation

plant. Hence the respondent prays to declare that the RPO is

not applicable in the respondent case.











(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties, we do not

disbelieve the submission made by the respondent however, it

is apparent from the record that the respondent has failed to

provide details as required to the nodal agency as well as the

Commission during the proceedings of this petition. Hence, we

direct the respondent to submit the details with affidavit to the

petitioner nodal agency within 30 days stating the reasons for

non-filing the details earlier. Any shortfall in RPO compliance

must be fulfilled by purchasing RE certificates by the end of

June 2018. We also warn the respondent if they fail in future in

compliance of the RPO including the submission of proper data

of 42

and certificates to the nodal agency, we will take strict action

and impose penalty upon him for such non-compliance.

xxxvi. M/s Jayaswal Neco Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 36 M/s Jayaswal Neco Ltd. submits that

the respondent is operating a co-generation captive power

plant based on waste heat generated by the blast furnace

plant of respondent with the use of fossil fuel (coal). According

to the respondent, their gross consumption of power from CGP

based on WHRB was 51.41 MUs in the year 2014-15. The solar

RPO in that year was 2.6321 MUs and non-solar RPO was

16.451 MUs. After adjustment of the RPO from their WHRB

generation they have consumed 34.959 MUs more renewable

power than their RPO compliance. The respondent requests

that they have no conventional generating plant, but it is a co-

generation plant and consumes power generated from co-

generation captive power plant and therefore the respondent

shall be exempted from RPO for the year 2014-15. The

respondent has also submitted certificate for the use of a

boiler from the Boiler Inspection Department.







generation power plant.


observe that there is no reason to reject the plea of

respondent that they have consumed much more power than

their RPO from their fossil fuel based co-generation power

plant and they are exempted from RPO for the year. We

decide that the respondent fulfilled RPO for the year 2014-15.

xxxvii. M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 37 M/s Sarda Energy & Minerals Limited

submits that for the year 2014-15 they are exempted from the

RPO under Regulation 3(ii) para 3. The details submitted shows

of 42

that the respondent's generation from co-generation plant was

13,67,06,360 MUs. After deduction of auxiliary consumption

1,42,25,658 MUs the net generation was 12,24,80,702 MUs all

the power of net generation was consumed by the respondent

itself.







power plant.


disbelieve the submission made by the respondent, however, it

is apparent from the record that the respondent has failed to





none filing the details earlier. Any shortfall in RPO compliance


June 2018. We also warn the respondent if they fail in future in

compliance of the RPO including the submission of proper data

and certificates to the nodal agency, we will take strict action

and impose penalty upon him for such non-compliance.

xxxviii. M/s Prakash Industries Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 38 M/s Prakash Industries Limited submits

that the power in plant of the respondent is generated through

waste heat recovery boilers for it's own consumption. Such

units or such source of energy has been considered as

renewable sources of energy by the Hon'ble APTEL in appeal

Nos. 57 and 54 of 2012. According to the respondent, their

own generation from WHRB was 258.78 MUs and their solar

RPO was 6.21 MUs and non-solar RPO was 49.66 MUs. Thus

the respondent has consumed excess 202.91 MUs power than

their RPO compliance for the year 2014-15. The respondent

of 42

has also submitted certificate for the use of boiler from the

Boiler Inspection Department.







generation power plant.



respondent that they have consumed much more power than

their RPO from their fossil fuel based co-generation power

plant and they are exempted from RPO for the year. We

decide that the respondent fulfilled RPO for the year 2014-15.

xxxix. M/s Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 39 M/s Nav Durga Fuels Pvt. Ltd. has

neither filed reply nor present at the time of hearings despite

given opportunities, hence we are constrained to decide the

matter on the basis of available records.


petition against the respondent on the basis of non submission

of RPO compliance report for the year 2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent has not

filed reply till date and therefore the petitioner is not in a

position to verify the data of the respondent. The petitioner

prays to declare that the respondent has failed to fulfill it's

RPO obligation for the year 2014-15.



there is no data in the file regarding the power generation and

consumption by the respondent. We are surprised that without

any data how the respondent is included in the petition.

We direct CREDA to ensure before filing petition in future

whether, the entity has consumed power either from CPP or

taken power through open access and thereafter, keeping in

of 42

view the quantum of captive consumption or power taken from

open access, enquire against the entity and thereafter, if

required initiate proceedings against the entity.

(D) We also express our displeasure towards the attitude of the

respondent. They have to honour the notices issued by the

Commission as a quasi judicial body and issued by the CREDA

as a nodal agency and put the factual position before them.

xl. M/s S.V. Power Pvt. Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 40 M/s S.V. Power Pvt. Ltd. submits that

the unit of the respondent was under shut down for want of

raw material (coal and coal washery rejects) during the period

of FY 2014-15. The power plant of the respondent was re-

commissioned in the month of September 2015 and started

generation in the month of October 2015.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits as the respondent has

informed that unit was shut down in the year, it can be

concluded that the respondent has not complied with the RPO

obligation in the year 2014-15.

(C) We have seen the submissions of both the parties. It appears

from the record that M/s S.V. Power was shut down in the

relevant period and neither generated nor consumed any

power from it's CPP. Hence we conclude that the respondent

was not obligated for RPO for the year 2014-15 as the plant

was shut down during the period.

xli. M/s Alok Ferro Alloys Limied :-

(A) The respondent No. 41 M/s Alok Ferro Alloys Ltd. admits that

they could not meet out RPO obligation for the year 2014-15,

but this condition emerged due to market condition as existing

during that time. It is also submitted that it was extremely

difficult to procure costly solar power. The respondent contrary

to the above submissions informed that the respondent has

set up 100 KW solar power generating station for itself to

meet it's solar RPO. The solar generating plant has already

been started in the month of March 2013. According to the

respondent, due to cash shortage RECs could not be

purchased and assured that in future on availability of cash

of 42

the respondent will purchase the RECs, in case solar purchase

obligations remain unfulfilled. The respondent prays to

discharge him from the present suo-motu proceedings and

exempt the respondent from RPO-REC obligations for the year

2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that no relevant documents

have been provided by the respondent in accordance with the

format prescribed; hence the respondent has failed to comply

RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.


respondent has admitted that it could not fulfill RPO, but it is

explained that due to market condition and financial difficulty,

they could not fulfill RPO. We do not agree with reasons

submitted by the respondent for non fulfillment of RPO. We

direct the respondent to fulfill the RPO for year 2014-15 by the

end of June 2018.

xlii. M/s Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Ltd, (Borjhara):-

(A) The respondent No. 42 M/s Shri Bajrang Power & Ispat Ltd.,

Borjhara Division has filed their reply separately but the

contents of the reply are same in nature. According to these

respondents, the Commission through orders in P. No. 98 of

2015 and P. No. 76 & 77 of 2015 already recognized the three

units of these respondent companies, as one entity. After

accumulation of data of the respondent companies, this

respondent is exempted from RPO as their own generation and

consumption from waste heat recovery based power generation

was 160.527 MUs, which was much more than the RPO

compliance (solar RPO 2.106 + non solar RPO 16.845 total

18.951 MUs) of the entity i.e. 3 units of the respondents.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent has not filed

reply and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to verify

the data of the respondent. The petitioner submits that the


2014-15.


reason to reject the plea of respondent that they have

of 42

consumed much more power than their RPO from their fossil

fuel based co-generation power plant. We have gone through

the data submitted by the respondent with reply and conclude

that they have consumed much more power than their RPO

from their fossil fuel based co-generation power plant and they

are exempted from RPO for the year. We decide that the

respondent fulfilled RPO for the year 2014-15.

xliii. M/s Ind Synergy and Power Limited :-

(A) The respondent no. 43 M/s Ind Synergy and Power Limited

has neither filed reply nor present at the time of hearings

despite given opportunities; hence we have to see the data

available on records.


petition against the respondent on the basis of non submission

of RPO compliance report for the year 2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent has not filed

reply till date and therefore the petitioner is not in a position to

verify the data of the respondent. The petitioner prays to

declare that the respondent has failed to fulfill it's RPO

obligation for the year 2014-15.



there is no data in the file regarding the power generation and

consumption by the respondent. We are surprised that without

any data how the respondent is included the petition.

We direct the CREDA to ensure before filing petition in future

whether, the entity has consumed power either from CPP or

taken power through open access and thereafter, keeping in

view the quantum of captive consumption or power taken from

open access, enquire against the entity and thereafter, if

required initiate proceedings against the entity.

We also express our displeasure towards the attitude of the

respondent. They have to honour the notices issued by the

Commission as a quasi judicial body and issued by the CREDA

as a nodal agency and put the factual position before them. We

of 42

direct the respondent to take care in future and reply the

notices issued by the competitive authorities.

However, as per records available to us, the respondent's

plant was shut down in the relevant year for some reasons.

xliv. M/s Indsil Energy & Electrochemicals Ltd. :-

(A) The respondent no. 44 M/s Indsil Energy & Electrochemical

Limited submits that in the year 2014-15 their solar RPO was

0.343 MU and non-solar RPO was 2.742 MUs. Neither

certificates nor the power was procured hence, the shortfall of

2.742 MUs remain at the end of the year. It is also submitted

that due to global recession and highly competitive market

especially in the Steel and stainless steel industries, the

demand for company's core product has drastically reduced, as

a result the company suffered huge loss in the business. The

respondent requests to grant exemption from RPO-REC

obligation as an obligated entity for the year 2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that the respondent does not

have WHRB co-generation power and neither has bought RE

Certificate/ RE Power. The CREDA prays that the respondent

failed to comply RPO obligation for the year 2014-15 and

accordingly, suitable action may be taken against the

respondent.

(C) Considering the submissions of both the parties, we dismiss the

submission of the respondent that due to global recession and

highly competitive market especially in the Steel and stainless

steel industries, the company suffered huge loss in the

business and therefore, the respondent may be exempted from

the RPO. We direct the respondent to meet out the RPO

obligation for the year 2014-15 by purchasing RE certificates or

RE power by the end of June 2018.

xlv. M/s Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd.:-

xlvi. M/s Hira Power & Steel Ltd.:-

(A) The respondent No. 45 M/s Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd. and

respondent No. 46 M/s Hira Power and Steel Ltd. admit that

they could not meet out RPO obligation for the year 2014-15,

but this condition emerged due to market condition as existing

during that time. It is also submitted that it was extremely

of 42

difficult to procure costly solar power. The respondents

contrary to the above submissions informed that they have set

up 100 KW solar power generating station for themselves to

meet their solar RPO. The solar generating plant has already

been started in the month of March 2013. According to the

respondents, due to cash shortage RECs could not be

purchased and assured that in future on availability of cash

they will purchase the RECs to meet out their RPO. The

respondents pray to discharge them from the present suo-

motu proceedings and exempt them from RPO-REC obligations

for the year 2014-15.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits that no relevant documents

have been provided by the respondents in accordance with the

format prescribed; hence the respondents have failed to

comply RPO obligations for the year 2014-15.


respondents have admitted that they could not fulfill RPO, but

it is explained that due to market condition and financial

difficulty, they could not fulfill RPO. We do not agree with

reasons submitted by the respondents for non fulfillment of

RPO. We direct them to fulfill the RPO either through procuring

renewable power or REC for year 2014-15 by the end of June

2018.

xlvii. M/s Jai Balaji Industries Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 47 M/s Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. submits

that their plant is completely closed since last few months and

so records related to the subject matter is not available so

they are not able to furnish the details as required.

(B) The petitioner CREDA submits as the respondent is unable to

produce any details, it can be concluded that the respondent

has not complied with the RPO obligations for the year 2014-

15.

(C) We considered the submissions of both the parties. It is not

clear from the reply of the respondent that from which day or

month the plant is closed. It is also not made clear by the

respondent that during the relevant year i.e. 2014-15 the

plant was closed or not. Hence, we are constrained to presume

of 42

that during the relevant year 2014-15 the respondent has not

complied with the RPO and we direct the respondent to comply

the obligation either by purchasing RE certificate or RE power

by the end of June 2018.

xlviii. M/s Devi Iron & Steel Power Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 48 M/s Devi Iron & Steel Power Limited

submits that they are exempt from RPO as their net co-

generation was 4.435 MUs from their co-located WHRB based

7.5 MW power generating plant. They have consumed 1.425

MUs as captive consumption and rest power was exported to

CSPDCL grid.












disbelieve the submission made by the respondent, however,

it is apparent from the record that the respondent has failed to





non-filing the details in earlier. Any shortfall in RPO

compliance must be fulfilled by purchasing RE certificates by

the end of June 2018. We also warn the respondent if they fail

in future in compliance of the RPO including the submission of

proper data and certificates to the nodal agency, we will take

strict action and impose penalty upon him for such non-

compliance.

of 42

xlix. M/s National Thermal Power Corporation, Seepat

l. M/s National Thermal Power Corporation, Korba :-

(A) The respondent No. 49 M/s National Thermal Power

Corporation, Seepat and respondent No. 50 M/s National

Thermal Power Corporation, Korba have filed joint reply and

submit that they are neither distribution licensee, open access

consumer nor captive generating plant and therefore, do not

qualify as obligated entity as per the definition provided under

the RPO Regulations, 2013. It is further submitted that the

respondents being Central Generating Station are to be

regulated by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission

(CERC) and not by the State Electricity Regulatory

Commission. Any dispute concerning these respondents has to

be adjudicated by the CERC.

(B) The petitioner CREDA, in reply, submits that no compliance

report has been submitted by these respondents and

therefore, requested to conclude that these respondents have

failed to fulfill their RPO for the year 2014-15.

(C) We have considered the submissions of both the parties.

These respondents submitted that they are generating stations

established by a Central Govt. under taking and they have no

captive consumption. They are neither distribution licensee nor

open access consumer and therefore, they are not covered

under the definition of obligated entity under the RPO

regulation, 2013.

There is no reason to disbelieve the submission by these

respondents. We hold that these respondents do not come

under the purview of definition of obligated entity. The CREDA

shall take care in future when it scrutinizes the list of obligated

entities.

li. M/s NTPC- Sail Power Company Limited :-

(A) The respondent No. 51 M/s NTPC- Sail Power Company

Limited has filed reply and submited that they are neither

distribution licensee, open access consumer nor captive

generating plant and therefore, do not qualify as obligated

entity as per the definition provided under the RPO

Regulations, 2013.

of 42

(B) The petitioner CREDA, in reply, submits that no compliance

report has been submitted by the respondent and therefore,

requested to conclude that the respondent has failed to fulfill

their RPO for the year 2014-15.

(C) We have considered the submissions of both the parties. The

respondent submitted that they are generating station

established by a joint venture of NTPC and SAIL. Both NTPC

and SAIL are Central Govt. undertakings and they have no

captive consumption. The respondent is neither distribution

licensee nor open access consumer and therefore, the

respondent is not covered under the definition of obligated

entity under the RPO regulation, 2013.

There is no reason to disbelieve the submission by the

respondent. We hold that the respondent does not come under

the purview of definition of obligated entity. The CREDA shall

take care in future when it scrutinizes the list of obligated

entities.

lii. M/s Maa Kali Alloys Udyog Pvt. Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 52 M/s Maa Kali Alloys Udyog Pvt. Limited

submits that their own generation from WHRB was 11.65 MUs

and their solar RPO was 0.39 MU and non-solar RPO was 3.08

MUs. Thus the respondent has consumed excess 8.57 MUs

power than their RPO compliance for the year 2014-15. The

respondent has also submitted certificate for the use of boiler

from the Boiler Inspection Department.


furnish the affidavit and the certified details of steam and

power generation from waste heat along with the RPO

compliance report with the seal and signature of a Chartered

Accountant. Therefore, the information provided by the

respondent is not complete and in accordance with the format

prescribed and approved by the Commission.



respondent, which is supported by an affidavit and also a

certificate in form-v issued by the Boiler Inspectorate. We

of 42

observe that the respondent has consumed much more power

than their RPO from their fossil fuel based co-generation

power plant and the respondent is exempted from RPO for the

year. We decide that the respondent fulfilled RPO for the year

2014-15.

liii. M/s Baldev Alloys Pvt. Limited:-

(A) The respondent No. 53 M/s Baldev Alloys Pvt. Limited submits

that the respondent is operating an 8 MW captive power plant

out of which 6 MW through WHRB and 2 MW through AFBC

boiler. The captive generation plant of the respondent

produces electricity for it's own use in the process of

manufacture of steel, sponge iron from WHRB. The respondent

power plant does not fall under the definition of "obligated

entity" as per the Regulations, 2013.












disbelieve the submission made by the respondent; however,

it is apparent from the record that the respondent has failed to





non-filing the details earlier. Any shortfall in RPO compliance


June 2018. We also warn the respondent if they fail in future

in compliance of the RPO including the submission of proper

data and certificates to the nodal agency, we will take strict

action and impose penalty on them for such non-compliance.

of 42

14. During the hearing many of the respondents have raised issue

regarding the prescribed format for data collection. We advise the

respondents, if they feel any difficulty regarding the format to

resolve the issue through mutual meeting with the petitioner

CREDA.

15. In some cases we observe that the petitioner CREDA has not

analyzed the data available with due care, which resulted in

unnecessary prosecution of the parties. We direct CREDA to

scrutinize and analyze the data carefully and ensure that the entities

have consumed power either from CPP or through open access. The

entities selling power to the licensees without any self consumption

is not the obligated entities and, therefore, such entities need not be

prosecuted.

16. We also observe negligent attitude of some of the respondents

regarding compliance of notices issued by the Commission as well as

by the nodal agency CREDA. All the respondents are directed to

comply properly the notices issued to them by the competent

authorities; otherwise the Commission will be constrained to take

strict action against them.

17. Each of the respondents and the petitioner CREDA are directed to

keep in mind the directions given in relevant paragraphs of this

order and honour the directions appropriately.

18. The case is accordingly disposed off. Copies of order may be

communicated to the respondents and the petitioner nodal agency

CREDA.

Sd/-

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) MEMBER

Sd/-

(NARAYAN SINGH) CHAIRMAN

Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission · M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd and 52...

Documents

Transcript of Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission · M/s API Ispat & Powertech Pvt. Ltd and 52...