In a recent petition before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), Enersan Power Pvt. Limited, Iron Triangle Limited, and Jaydeep Cotton Fibres Pvt. Limited sought interpretation and clarification regarding the GERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement, and Related Matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2019. This matter pertains to discrepancies in the application of the regulations by the State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC), specifically concerning the treatment of energy categorized as inadvertent.
The petitioners argued that SLDC’s interpretation of the 2019 regulations was erroneous, necessitating a clarification. They referred to provisions in the regulations and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) guidelines, highlighting the clause requiring deviation charges for under or over-injection of energy by solar generators selling power outside the state. According to their interpretation, over-injected energy should qualify for payment after deducting deviation settlement charges, but they alleged non-payment for excess generation classified as inadvertent energy. They also invoked the Indian Contract Act, 1872, claiming that the respondents benefited from a non-gratuitous act and were therefore obligated to compensate for the additional energy generated.
Representing the petitioners, their legal counsel emphasized the need for clarification rather than an amendment to the regulations, arguing against the retrospective application of amendments. The counsel asserted that payments for over-injected energy were essential to ensure equity and justice, especially since this energy was monetized downstream by the distribution companies (DISCOMs).
The SLDC, represented by its legal counsel, contended that the petitioners were effectively seeking a retrospective amendment to the regulations. They maintained that the 2019 regulations were formulated following due process, with opportunities provided for public comments during the drafting stage, which the petitioners did not utilize. Furthermore, they argued that amendments, if necessary, should be prospective and in line with the Electricity Act, 2003. They emphasized adherence to the detailed procedures approved by GERC and claimed that the petitioners had no grounds to contest the existing framework, especially in the absence of prior objections.
The commission observed that the petitioners had not complied with previous directives requiring a public notice and an affidavit as part of their procedural obligations. The petitioners assured the commission of their intent to verify records and file the required compliance affidavit. In turn, the commission directed the petitioners to file this affidavit within a week and allowed SLDC to submit further responses, ensuring both parties adhere to procedural formalities.
The commission has scheduled the next hearing for December 2, 2024, allowing time for all parties to present their submissions. The outcome will likely hinge on whether the petitioners can substantiate their claims within the regulatory framework and if the SLDC’s interpretations align with the intended purpose of the regulations.
