| Work Detail |
The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission addressed a dispute in Petition No. 2194/2024 filed by Star Cotspin Ltd. against Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (AVVNL). The petitioner contested a penalty of ?32,81,040 levied for the alleged non-compliance with the RERC (Grid Interactive Distributed Renewable Energy Generating Systems) Regulations, 2021. Star Cotspin Ltd., an industrial consumer, operates a solar PV plant with an installed capacity of 2.185 MW. They argued that their installations were completed before the 2021 regulations came into force and were governed by earlier regulations. The petitioner claimed the penalty was unjustified, as their expanded capacity of 784 kW was installed before July 2021, the enforcement date of the new regulations.
The respondent, AVVNL, maintained that the penalty was imposed due to the petitioner’s failure to notify the distribution licensee about the operation of their solar plant, as required by the 2021 regulations. AVVNL argued that the fixed charges applied to the petitioner were valid under these regulations.
The Commission examined both parties’ arguments and noted the petitioner’s contention that their project was regulated under the 2020 framework, exempting them from the 2021 regulations. However, the Commission upheld the respondent’s view, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to provide the required intimation about their solar plant’s operation. The mandatory notification provision, outlined in Regulation 10.14.6 of the 2021 framework, obligates consumers to report behind-the-meter renewable energy systems to the distribution licensee within three months of the regulations’ notification.
The Commission concluded that the petitioner’s non-compliance with the notification requirement justified the penalty. It highlighted that the fixed charges were applied following the rules specified in the 2021 regulations, making them applicable to the petitioner’s solar plant. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the petition, affirming the respondent’s penalty demand and emphasizing the consumer’s responsibility to comply with statutory obligations. No costs were awarded in this decision. |
