The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) reviewed a petition filed by M/s Saraf Export Palace, disputing charges related to grid connectivity and the construction of a dedicated 33 kV bay at RVPNL’s 132 kV Grid Substation Kolayat, Bikaner. The petitioner sought a refund or adjustment of ₹12 lakhs previously paid as grid connectivity charges, alongside contesting a subsequent demand of ₹19,74,458 for the new bay construction.
The petitioner argued that the initial grid connectivity charges, paid when setting up two solar power plants, should have been adjusted against the new demand. The petitioner emphasized that their request for a revised connectivity plan arose due to operational issues, as their O&M contractor, M/s Rays Power Experts Pvt. Ltd., refused to evacuate power through the existing transmission line. This led them to seek direct connectivity to RVPNL’s substation.
RVPNL, the respondent, maintained that the grid connectivity charges are one-time and non-refundable, as per the Solar Policy, 2019, and that the demand for the bay construction cost was justified. They argued that the petitioner voluntarily sought revised connectivity and explicitly agreed to bear the associated costs.
The Commission examined the Solar Policy, 2019, and relevant regulations, noting no explicit provision for adjusting or refunding grid connectivity charges in cases of revised connectivity. The policy outlines that infrastructure costs for new or modified connectivity are recoverable from the power producer requesting the changes. The Commission held that the petitioner’s reliance on internal correspondence to support their claim was misplaced, as those communications lacked binding authority.
The Commission concluded that the demand for ₹19,74,458 by RVPNL was consistent with the principles of cost recovery under the Solar Policy, 2019. It emphasized that infrastructure costs arising from revised connectivity should be borne by the beneficiary and not distributed among other consumers. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for a refund or adjustment of ₹12 lakhs was denied, and the petition was dismissed without costs.
