Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017

ORDER ON FORECASTING AND SCHEDULING Page 1 of 97
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Jaipur
(Petition No. RERC-1382/18, 1406/18, 1431/18, 1495/19, 1511/19 and 1531/19.)
In the matter of
Petitions and representations filed pursuant to the order dated 29.05.2019 of the
Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench in the matter of DBCWP No(s)
18587/2018,3662/2018 and 2623/2018.
and
Petitions filed Under Section 86 (1), (c), (e), (f) and (h) of the Electricity Act
2003 for adjudication of disputes regarding the RERC (Forecasting,
Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind
Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017.
and
Regulation 24 and 25 of the RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation
Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources)
Regulations, 2017.
Coram:
Shri Shreemat Pandey, Chairman
Shri S.C. Dinkar, Member
Shri Prithvi Raj, Member
Petitioners:
1. Indian Wind Power Association, (Rajasthan State Council) (1531/2019)
2. Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd.,(1511/2019)
3. Green Energy Association.,(1382/2018)
4. Godawari Green Energy Ltd.(1406/2018)
5. Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd.,(1431/2018)
6. Walwhan Solar AP Ltd. (1495/2019)
Respondents:
1. Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd./Rajasthan State Load Despatch
Centre.

2. RE Connect Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
3. Manikaran Analytics Ltd.
4. Statkraft Markets Pvt. Ltd.
Date(s) of hearings: 01.08.2019, 08.08.2019, 14.08.2019, 20.08.2019
Present:
1. Sh. Ravi Chirania, Advocate for IWPA.
2. Sh. Shashank Agarwal and Anant Kasliwal, Advocates for Tanot Wind
Power.
3. Sh.Buddy Ranganadhan and Sh.Sudeep Chakraborty, Advocates for
Godawari Green Energy.
4. Ms Swapana Seshadri, Advocate for Green Energy Association.
5. Ms.Nistha Kumar and Sh.V.H.Wagle, Advocates for Walwhan Solar AP
Ltd.Sh. Bipin Gupta,Advocate for Discoms.
6. Sh.V.K.Gupta for Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd.
7. Ms Anushree Bardhan, Advocate for NVVNL.
8. Sh. Hement Singh, Advocate for Manikaran Analytics Ltd.
9. Sh.Mithun Dubey for REConnect Energy.
10. Sh. Abhinav Saraswat,Advocate for Renew Power.
Date of Order: 27.09.2019
ORDER
1. The Government of India (GoI) has planned for setting up the 175 GW of
the Renewable by 2022 out of which 100 GW of solar, 60 GW of wind
power and 10 GW of Biopower and 5 GW of small hydro power will be
installed. Most of the existing Renewable Energy (RE) capacity (mainly
wind and solar) comes under the control of the States. In alignment with the
above GoI plan and potential available in the country, it is apparent that
there will be large additions of Renewable Energy (RE) capacities- wind and
solar energy in the country as well as State.

2. In order to facilitate large scale integration of generation from RE sources to
the Grid, Forecasting and Scheduling of electricity generated from these
sources is required for which CERC notified the Framework on Forecasting,
Scheduling and Imbalance Handling for Variable RE Sources (Wind and
Solar) on 7.08.2015 by making the following amendments to the Indian
Electricity Grid Code (IEGC) and the DSM Regulations:
 Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Indian Electricity Grid
Code) (Third Amendment) Regulations, 2015.
 Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Deviation Settlement
Mechanism and related matters) (Second Amendment) Regulations,
2015.
3. The Framework introduced by CERC, as above, is applicable for solar and
wind generators that are regional entities, i.e., their scheduling and
settlement is handled by the respective Regional Load Dispatch Centre
(RLDC). While finalizing the framework, CERC also observed that after
instituting an inter-state framework, it would also create an enabling
framework and frame Model Regulations for the State level, which would be
shared with the Forum of Regulator (FOR) for implementation/ adaptation at
the State level. FOR, accordingly evolved the Model Regulations on
Forecasting, Scheduling and Deviation Settlement of Wind and Solar
Generating Stations at the State level.
4. With CERC Framework already in place, implementation of a similar
framework at the State level was also desirable in order to accommodate the
integration of the RE capacity in the State. Rajasthan is a RE rich State
having a vast potential for solar power and wind power. In order to facilitate
smooth and seamless integration of such sources with the State grid,
Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter ‘RERC’ or
‘Commission’) proposed to frame the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory
Commission (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and Related
Matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2016 with
modification in the Model Regulations evolved by FOR.

5. Before finalizing the Draft Regulation, in order to invite
comments/suggestions from the stakeholders, the Draft Regulations along
with Explanatory Memorandum were placed on the website of the
Commission and Public Notices were also published in the Newspapers.
After considering the comments/suggestions received from the stakeholders,
Commission finalized the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and Related Matters of solar
and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017 (hereinafter ‘RERC
Forecasting Regulations’) which were then notified on 14.09.2017. The
commercial mechanism prescribed under the RERC Forecasting Regulations
was to come into force on 01.01.2018, which was subsequently deferred to
01.02.2018.
6. In accordance with the provision of the Regulation 13 of the RERC
Forecasting Regulations, the State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC) submitted
“Procedure for implementation of the Framework on Forecasting and
Scheduling for Renewable Energy (RE) Generating stations (Wind and
Solar)” for approval of the Commission. The procedure was approved by the
Commission on 28.12.2017 and the same was to be implemented w.e.f.
01.02.2018.
7. Subsequently, Indian Wind Power Association, Rajasthan Council (‘IWPA’)
filed a petition (RERC-1318/2018) before the Commission seeking
relaxation in the effective date of implementation of the Regulations and
sought clarification on the other provisions of the Regulations and the
procedure. During the pendency of this petition, IWPA also filed an Appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court Rajasthan challenging the validity of the
regulations and the procedure laid down under the regulations (DBCWP-
18587/2018). The petitioner association did not appear in the proceedings
before the Commission. Finally, the Commission had to dismiss the petition
due to their non-appearance and considering them to be no more interested
in contesting and pursuing the matter.
8. Meanwhile, two more generators namely, Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt.
Ltd., (DBCWP-3662/2018) and M./s Ramgad Minerals and Mining Limited,

(DBCWP-2623/2018) also preferred the Appeals before the Hon’ble
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench challenging the RERC Forecasting
Regulations and the Procedure approved thereunder.
9. In the meanwhile, the following petitions have also been filed before the
Commission:
(1) Green Energy Association vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited (RERC-1382/2018).
(2) Godawari Green Energy Ltd. vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited (RERC-1406/2018).
(3) Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Load Despatch
Centre (through Chief Engineer LD) (RERC-1431/2018).
(4) Walwhan Solar AP Pvt. Ltd vs. Rajasthan State Load Despatch Centre
and NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (Petition No. 1495/2019).
10. The Hon’ble High Court Jodhpur, vide judgement dated 29.05.2019, upheld
the constitutional validity of the Regulations and passed the order in the
matter and the operating part of the order reads as under:
“81. For what has been discussed above, we do not find anything offending
or arbitrary in the impugned Regulations, making them vulnerable to Part III
of the Constitution. Petitioners’ challenge to the Regulations, thus, fails.
82. The petitioners have raised host of arguments, some of which touch upon
the constitutional validity, while others seek to unravel their innate
unreasonableness or impracticability. Notwithstanding the fact that we have
upheld the validity of the impugned Regulations, we feel that certain
grievances raised by the petitioners, need to be appropriately addressed to,
which we have noticed while hearing the arguments laying challenge to the
vires of the Regulations of 2017.
83. We are cognizant of our constraints so far as the technical aspects are
concerned. Needless to observe that with a view to appreciate the adversities
allegedly faced and in a bid to fathom the financial disadvantages
purportedly meted out by the wind power generators, one is supposed to know
the nitty-gritties of generations; distribution; grid functions; and the
technology, not only which is presently available, but also which is in offing.

We thus refrain from embarking upon such unfamiliar terrain, and leave the
technical aspects to be dealt with by the subject experts.
84. Learned Advocate General has assured us that RERC is a statutory body,
comprising of experts of various subjects and is competent to deal with the
grievances of the petitioners–power generators, besides possessing
regulatory powers. Upon perusal of Regulations 23 to 26 of the Regulations,
we find that they are wide enough to address the concerns raised by the
petitioners.
85. We, therefore, relegate the petitioners to approach the RERC with their
grievances, (including those which have been raised before us) for their
efficacious redressal. The petitioners may file their representation/petition(s)
ventilating their grievance(s)within a period of 15 days from today. In case
such petition/review is filed, the RERC shall decide the same within a period
of two months from the date of filing, after providing opportunity of hearing
to all stake holders, including the petitioners. Until the petitioners’
representation/review petitions are decided, the respondent RRVPNL shall
remain restrained from recovering the deviation charges from the petitioners
and/or QCAs.”
11. Pursuant to decision of the Hon’ble High Court M/s Ramgad Minerals and
Mining Ltd. filed representation on 14.06.2019. Tanot wind power Venture
Pvt Ltd. filed a petition on 21.06.2019. M/s IWPA filed a petition
18.07.2019 with a prayer to condone the delay in filing.
12. The Commission issued a Public Notice inviting comments/ suggestions/
objections on the above referenced Petitions as well as the RERC
Forecasting Regulations and procedure approved thereunder. The Public
Notice was published in the following newspapers on the dates indicated
against them:
(1) Rajasthan Patrika 6.07.2019.
(2) Dainik Bhaskar 6.07.2019.
(3) The Times of India 7.07.2019.
13. The public notices along with copies of petition received from M/s Tanot
Wind Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd, representation received from M/s Ramgad
Minerals and Mining Pvt Ltd and other representations received in the same

matter were also placed on the Commission’s website
(http://rerc.rajasthan.gov.in/). The stakeholders were asked to submit their
comments/suggestions/ objections by 22.07.2019. Subsequently, a Petition
was received from M/s Indian Wind Power Association (‘IWPA’). The same
also placed on the Commission’s website in addition to the above documents
already uploaded on the Commission website. The last date of receiving
comments/suggestion was extended upto 25.07.2019 and accordingly notices
were again published in the following newspapers on the dates indicated
against them:
(1) Rajasthan Patrika 20.07.2019.
(2) Dainik Bhaskar 20.07.2019.
(3) The Times of India 21.07.2019.
Forty-two (42) No’s of objections/comments were received.
14. List of stakeholders who submitted written comments/ suggestions/
objections is attached as Annexure-I.
15. Public hearings in the matter were held by the Commission on 1st
, 8th
, 14th
and 20th
August 2019 at the Commission’s courtroom.
16. The matter heard on 1.08.2019. The counsel of the Petitioner M/s Tanot
Wind Power Venture Ltd requested for a short adjournment stating that they
have filed a review petition before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
in the matter and the same is listed on 2.08.2019. Accordingly, the matter
was adjourned.
17. The matter was again heard on 08.08.2019. Counsel/representatives of the
Green Energy Association, M/s Walwhan Solar AP Ltd, M/s Rajasthan Sun
Technique Energy Pvt Ltd, M/s Renew Power and M/s Clean Wind Power,
M/s CLP India Ltd, M/s Fortum Amrit Energy Pvt. Ltd. And Bask Research
Foundation made their submission. The matter was again posted on
14.08.2019. During the hearing submissions were made in petitions M/s
Tanot Wind Power Venture Ltd., Green Energy Association, M/s Godawari
Green Energy Ltd., M/s Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Walwhan Solar AP Ltd. and Commission allowed the parties to file their
written submissions (if any), within one week. Submissions in the matter of
Indian Wind Power Association were part-heard.
18. The matter was finally heard on 20th August 2019. After hearing all the
parties, order was reserved.
19. The issues contained in the Petitions already pending before the Commission
prior to the issuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court and
petitions/representations received pursuant to the Hon’ble High Court order
and other representations and comments/suggestion received from
stakeholders are in respect of the RERC Forecasting Regulations and the
procedure approved thereunder. Hence, all the petitions, representation and
comments have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of
by this common order.
20. The comments/ suggestions/ objections of the Petitioners as well as others
along with the response thereon of the respondents and the views of the
Commission are detailed hereunder:
Preliminary objections:
21. M/s IWPA and other generators submitted that they are not against the
implementation of Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and Related Matters of
Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017 but they have
certain grievances and facing certain difficulties which need to be
considered by the Commission.
22. Sh. Bipin Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of RUVN submitted as
under:
(1) In the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Rajasthan, para no 7 reads as under:
"7. By way of the writ petition, the petitioners have made a prayer to
quash the entire Regulations of 2017 and so also the framework as
approved by the Commission for forecasting and scheduling"

As per the above para, the RERC Forecasting Regulations, as well as the
Procedure thereunder, were under challenge before Hon'ble High Court.
(2) The para no 16 of the Hon’ble High Court Order, which is reproduced
herein, reads as under:
"16. Though the petitioner has found fault with almost every Regulation
of the Regulations, but during the course of arguments, learned counsel
has confined his grievance towards generators compulsion to opt for
QCA and the deviation charges prescribed the Regulation 18 of the
Regulations of 2017"
(3) The bare reading of this para 16 indicates that the petitioners had
doubted and challenged every Regulation of the Regulations of 2017
but when could not succeed before the Hon'ble High Court in
convincing they confined their arguments only on following two issues:
(I) Compulsion to opt for QCA and
(II) Deviation charges prescribed in Regulation 18 of the
Regulations of 2017.
(4) Hon’ble High Court has decided the entire writ petition upholding the
Regulations as well as Regulation 18 of the Regulations of 2017 as
recorded in para 80 and 81of the judgment dated 29.5.2019 which is
reproduced herein and reads as under:
"80. Argument of Mr. Bhansali that the respondents cannot levy
deviation charges under Regulation 18 of the Regulations as the same
would violate the provisions of the Regulations more particularly
Regulation 5, is untenable. According to him, the impugned deviation
charges interfere with the tariff fixed in the Regulations without there
being any stipulation of levy of deviation charges in the tariff. This
argument of Mr. Bhansali lacks merit as deviation charges are in the
nature of fine on account of failure to meet the scheduled generation.
As such the fine cannot be treated to be an amount deductible from the
tariff or the generation charges. In our opinion, the deviation charge is
independent and divorced of the tariff and as such the stipulation
regarding amount payable contained in Regulation 5 does not get

interfered or breached as a result of the deviation charges prescribed
in the Regulation 18.81. For what has been discussed above, we do not
find anything offending or arbitrary in the impugned Regulations,
making them vulnerable to Part Ill of the Constitution. Petitioner's
challenge to the Regulations, thus, fails.”
(5) Thus, para 82 of High Court Order can only be read in light of para
7,16 and 81 of the said order and only the procedure is to be seen by the
Commission as procedure was not specifically upheld.
(6) Therefore, it is submitted that the regulations having been upheld by
the Hon'ble High Court and that too petitioners confining on two issues
only, there is no further necessity to go into regulation part as
regulations have already been upheld and so far as question of QCA is
concerned as prescribed in procedure, this Commission may take and
pass the appropriate orders.
23. Manikaran Analytics Limited (‘MAL’) submitted that IWPA in their
aforesaid writ petition challenged the validity of each and every Regulation
of the DSM Regulations, 2017, as has also been raised in the present
petition. However, during the course of the arguments before Hon’ble High
Court, they categorically confined its arguments on two aspects of the said
Regulations, firstly, on the compulsion of the generators to opt for Qualified
Coordinating Agency (hereinafter referred to as the 'QCA') and secondly, the
deviation charges prescribed vide Regulation 18 of the DSM Regulations,
2017. MAL submitted that, according to para 16, 75 and 80 of the judgement
of the Hon'ble High Court, the IWPA and other Petitioners waived/ gave up
the challenge to the other provisions of the regulations.
24. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court vide its judgement dated
29.05.2019 upheld the validity of the DSM Regulations, 2017. Hence, by
virtue of the said judgement of the Hon'ble High Court, there is no mistake
or error committed by the Commission while framing Regulation 18 of the
DSM Regulations, 2017, and the mechanism for selecting QCAs. As regards
the other points of the challenge to the regulations, the Petitioner had itself
given up its claims before the Hon'ble High Court.

25. On account of the aforementioned facts, the IWPA cannot at all raise
any issues, whatsoever, with respect to any aspect of the DSM
Regulations 2017 other than Regulation 18 and the mechanism to
appoint QCAs. On account of the rejection of the petition seeking
amendment of the above aspects of the Regulations by the Hon'ble High
Court, the Petitioner, now, cannot at all challenge or seek amendment to
the Regulation 18 and the mechanism to appoint QCAs before this
Hon'ble Commission under the present petition. If at all the Petitioner
wanted to challenge the above aspects of the DSM Regulations 2017,
then it should have filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Having failed to do so, neither the Petitioner could have filed the present
petition asking for the same relief, nor, this Hon'ble Commission can
grant the same as it does not have any appellate power to rule over and
above what has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court.
26. MAL referring to the Regulation 24 of the RERC Forecasting
Regulations which grants the Commission Power to Relax, highlighted
that the power to relax granted under any Regulation has a very narrow
and limited scope and in no sense, the said scope can be widened to
amend the existing Regulations. Relaxation can never mean amending
the regulations. As such, the power to relax cannot at all be used to take
away or adversely affect the rights of the QCAs as per the existing
contracts. In light of the settled principle of law, this Hon'ble
Commission cannot transgress into amending the Regulations, especially
when the same have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
27. MAL also submitted that the power to issue directions has been provided
under Regulation 25 of the RERC Forecasting Regulations which
merely provides that the Commission may issue directions as may be
considered necessary in furtherance of the objective and purpose of the
Regulations and not to amend the Regulations.
28. It is further submitted by MAL that the Regulation 26 of the DSM
Regulations, 2017 grants the power to the Commission to amend the

Regulations which can be used sparingly and in exceptional
circumstances without frustrating the provisions of the statute.
29. SLDC as regards the petition filed by M/s Tanot Wind Power submitted that
Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan vide order dated 29.05.2019 while
upholding the RERC Forecasting Regulations has directed the petitioners to
approach the Commission and raise its grievances for its efficacious
redressal within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the order and
a further direction to this Commission to decide the grievances of the
petitioners within a period of two months from the date of filing, after
providing opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders, including the
petitioners. However, the petition was filed by the petitioners after the
stipulated time. Regarding the petition filed by IWPA, SLDC submitted that
if the petitioner wanted an extension to file petition beyond the stipulated
time, the proper remedy was to file an application seeking an extension of
time before the Hon’ble High Court and therefore the letter dated 13.06.2019
has no relevance. This Hon’ble Commission is time-bound to decide the
matter as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan.
The petitioner has filed the petition after inordinate delay.
30. IWPA submitted that they have explained the reason for filing the petition
and unintentional delay as occurred in the present case and requested the
Commission to condone the delay.
Commission’s Analysis and Decision
31. In view of submission made by IWPA regarding the delay, the Commission
condones the delay in filing of the petition by IWPA.
32. It was contended before the Commission by Rajasthan Urja Vikas Nigam
Ltd., (RUVN) on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms that the regulations have
been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court and, there is further no necessity to
go into regulation part as regulations have already been upheld and para 16
of Hon’ble High Court Order indicates that though the IWPA had doubted
and challenged every Regulation by finding fault in each but they confined
their arguments only on following two issues i.e. Compulsion to opt for

QCA and deviation charges prescribed in Regulation 18 of the Regulations
of 2017.
33. It was submitted by RUVN that so far as the question of QCA is concerned
as prescribed in procedure, this commission may take and pass appropriate
orders and there is no need to consider any other submissions.
34. The Commission has considered the preliminary submission of RUVN and
other stakeholders and is of the view that since Hon’ble High Court has
directed to consider the grievances of the Generators for their efficacious
redressal and aim of the current proceeding is to implement the impugned
Regulations in the State of Rajasthan, it would, therefore, be appropriate that
all points raised by various stakeholders be considered appropriately .
35. The Commission heard learned Counsel(s) appearing for the Petitioners and
Respondents as well as other Stakeholders and has also considered all the
petitions, representations and Comments/Suggestions received as well as
submissions made during the hearing on the matter.
36. The issues raised by the stakeholders their comments, suggestions and
objections as well as SLDC’s and QCA’s response are summarized below:
Aggregation of schedules at State Level
Stakeholders comments /suggestions/ objections
37. IWPA and Tanot Wind Power submitted that SERC of Karnataka and
Andhra Pradesh have provided for the Aggregation in their
regulation. The aggregation allows the QCA to aggregate the
forecasting and scheduling of different Pooling stations to
overcome the challenges of diversity by permitting a larger
geographical area. Rajasthan State being the area with a lot of
diversities. Creation of a large virtual pool through the
aggregation of multiple PSS will help in improving the accuracy of
renewables generation forecast to the SLDC, easing the power
management by SLDC and will be beneficial for all the wind/ solar
generators.

38. IWPA further submitted that the Regulations need to be examined again
along with the second report of Forum of Regulators and thereafter the
suitable amendment be made for providing virtual pool account in respect of
deviation charges and the settlement. APERC has provided for virtual pool
stations.
39. Godawari Green Energy Ltd.(GGEL), Green Energy Association(GEA) and
Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Pvt submitted that the deviation within the
virtual pool,.i.e., for each pooling station(s) of virtual pool of all solar and
wind generators have been worked out by the SLDC but deviation for the
virtual pool as a whole (consisting of all wind and solar generators taken
together), as required by Regulation 20 has not been worked out by the
SLDC. It is submitted that Clause 3.7 of the Model Regulations of FOR
elaborates the concept of the virtual pool as mentioned in regulation 20. The
deviation charges as per Deviation Settlement Account (DSA) of pooling
station is to be first adjusted as per deviation charges of the virtual pool
(considered as a whole) and then to be readjusted as per allocation of
deviation charges payable to/receivable from regional pool by the State to
the virtual pool of solar and wind generators. RE generators should not pay
deviation charge based on pooling station as it is not the individual generator
but virtual pool as a whole which affects the scheduling and drawal of the
State as a whole which also affects the Grid operation. Deviation charge is
revenue neutral mechanism for SLDC and readjustment of deviation charges
has to be based on the allocation of regional deviation charges which will
reflect correct liability of solar and wind generators.
40. Godawari Green Energy Ltd submitted that since they are connected to PS-2
(132kV) S/S of the STU at PS-2 Phalodi and there is another 5MW solar PV
plant also connected to the same PS-2 (132 kV) S/S of STU at Phalodi and
another 10 MW solar PV load is diverted from PS-3 S/S of the STU to PS-2
Phalodi S/S. Hence, deviation accounting and settlement is required to be
carried out for entire pooling S/S i.e., PS-2 Phalodi. Rajasthan Sun
Technique Energy Pvt. Ltd also made the submission to allow aggregation of
generation of their plant and their sister concern DSPPL’s which are

connected to the same GSS of 220 kV GSS Dechu treating it as a single
pooling station for the purpose of DSM. It is also submitted that QCAs do
not have forecasting tools/software and prior experience, competence and
exposure to forecast the schedule of generation of CSP. Hence, they may be
allowed to act as QCA.
41. Statkraft also expressed agreement to the suggestion regarding aggregation
at the State level by QCA or by SLDC for calculating Deviation charges.
42. Several other stakeholders have sought clarity on the existing clause (viz.
Regulation 20 of the Regulations) and have also reiterated the need of State
level aggregation of schedules.
43. Per contra del2infinity Energy Consulting Pvt Ltd, submitted that
geographical aggregation of forecasting, scheduling and deviation settlement
of wind generation at PSS level may not to be allowed. It was demonstrated
in their submission that aggregation of different pooling stations irrespective
of geographical location affects the transmission and balancing the demand-
supply of the grid. As per them in aggregation there may not be any overall
deviation but it may happen that the power from surplus geographical
location to power deficient location may not be freely possible within the
same aggregated area since the transmission capacity is not infinite. Thus,
will create instability of the grid. Further, it is also requested that even the
wind and solar power forecasting are not to be aggregated together as the
forecast error in solar is much less than forecast error in the wind power. It is
suggested that all wind and solar generators or IPPs to be allowed to
provide and submit its own scheduling and forecasting on its own
individually and independently.
44. The Prayas Energy Group suggested that aggregation at the state level may
not be allowed. As per them, the recommended level of error (10% for new
projects / 15% for old projects) for which there are no penalties under Model
FOR Regulations holds true only when errors are calculated at the level of
each pooling station and not aggregated at the level of the State. Errors

estimated for the system would necessarily be lower than those estimated for
individual pooling stations.
45. The RUVNL on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms submitted that the
objective of aggregation at PSS is to ensure monitoring of operations at
micro-levels. This will give a clearer picture of operational bottlenecks and
steps can be taken to improve the efficiency of forecasts and generation.
Aggregation at the state level may lead to a reduction of costs but it would
defy the underlying objective of the regulations, i.e. maintain grid discipline
and improving operational efficiency.
SLDC’s response
46. SLDC submitted that aggregation at the State level would lead to a situation
when poor forecasting at a particular PSS may be compensated by a good
forecast at another PSS, which would lead to poor Grid Management of such
PSS. This shall lead to overall Grid indiscipline, which defeats the purpose
of these Regulations.
47. SLDC further submitted that at present, the installed capacity of RE in
Rajasthan is about 7400 MW which is projected to be 14400 MW by 2022-
23. Aggregation at State level would result in no DSM charges for +/- 15%
of such large penetration of Renewable Energy and such magnitude would
be detrimental to the stability of the Grid. This would result in a huge
liability of DSM charges on the State Discoms which would have a huge
financial impact on the consumers of Rajasthan as they have to ultimately
bear the burden. Therefore, aggregation at State level should not be
permitted.
Issues related to data sharing and associated infrastructure.
48. IWPA stated that there is no system in place for recording and storing of all
loads, survey and billing parameters for every 15 minutes time block and
required data is also not made available to the generators.

49. Regarding regulation 12 IWPA submitted that the required technical
specifications are to be shared by the Generator with the QCA and then by
the QCA with the SLDC but due to non-availability or non-sharing of the
required information by the QCA, SLDC and Generators, there is no
compliance of this Regulation.
50. IWPA further submitted that SLDC has been entrusted with the task of
planning for data telemetry, communication, requirements of forecasting
submission etc. with the belief that it would act in a fair, proper, transparent,
legal and systematic manner. However, the framework has been made by
SLDC without prior consultation, comments and suggestion of the
generators/stakeholders on self-assumption, self-assessment and
presumption about QCA. Further, as per Regulation 7, SLDC is itself a QCA
and How SLDC can make procedure for other QCAs and generators.
51. IWPA also submitted that QCAs are not getting any cooperation,
assistance, coordination from the STU/ SLDC and other agencies in
forecasting, scheduling and settlement of deviation charges due to which
it has become impossible for them to perform their duties and
responsibilities as provided under the Regulations. Therefore, the
Commission may provide for equal responsibility of the STU /SLDC for
coordination with the QCA.
52. IWPA submitted that SLDC has failed to maintain the accounts and
records as per regulation 22 and the illegal charges raised up till now
deserves to be declared illegal. Further, for transparency and fairness,
IWPA made the following suggestions:
(1) A Web-portal be created by the respondent RVPNL exclusively
for implementation of DSM Regulations 2017 which must
contain all the required data and information and access to all
wind and solar generators to this web portal
(2) Forecast and Schedule by the SLDC as per regulation 7,16 etc.
(3) All the data namely telemetry data from RTU to SLDC

(4) All the data relating to individual generators which include all
technical specification etc.
(5) The weather data as received/provided by the IMD.
(6) The generator wise forecast and time block wise schedule
submitted by the QCA to SLDC
(7) Generator wise and time block wise revision by QCA as per DSM
Regulations 2017.
(8) Daily calculation of deviations and deviation charges be reflected
generator wise on the web- portal with login ID etc. and right to
access to the generators, QCA and other agencies.
(9) Issues raised by QCA or generators with SLDC or vice versa for
monthly deviation charges etc.
(10) Monthly decision by SLDC of their issues raised by QCA and /or
generator.
(11) Details of plants, about functioning, back down, under
maintenance closed etc.
(12) Monthly de-pool of deviations and deviation charges
generator wise calculated by QCA.
(13) Details of the account of SLDC as per Regulation 22.
53. Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt Ltd and others submitted that Generators
and QCAs do not have any access to the Smart Transmission Operation
Management System (STOMS) meter data used by SLDC for the DSM
calculation. Generators are using SCADA data for the forecasting and de-
pooling process that may lead to higher discrepancies and deviations. It is
suggested that SLDC should make data accessible to all QCAs and
generators through a common web-based portal to maintain transparency in
the system as this would help generators to be updated with real time status
and enable them to take corrective measures quickly based on the real time
data. It is also submitted by them that STOMS meters are not time
synchronized with commercial meters and properly calibrated with the
STOMS meter due to which there is a huge deviation in the accuracy in each
block.

54. It is also suggested by the Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd. that:
(1) All meters to be calibrated through authorized agency as per the
SLDC norms.
(2) Existing time stamping for DSM meter at grid substation with the
commercial ABT meters and other meters in the PSS and SCADA
(3) All meters used for DSM and energy export measurement must be of
same accuracy and the real time data of DSM meter shall be made
available to generators / respective forecasters
(4) SLDC has already installed single DSM meter under STOM project
for actual generation data at each RVPNL GSS. They need to be the
nodal agency & lead the activity for installation of check meter
(installation of 1 no ABT meter and DCU (Data Concentrator Unit)),
to build redundancy in case of mal functioning of the main meter or
error in the installed meter.
(5) The customers may be back charged from their energy bill.
55. Green Energy Association submitted that metering is the responsibility of
SLDC, however, it has not installed meters at all RE pooling stations across
the State due to which generators that are connected to the pooling stations
not having such meters installed do not incur any charges for DSM while
others do. It is submitted by them that the meters installed are not time
synchronized with GPS as required by the procedure. Further, even the
installed meters do not meet the requirement of the CEA (Installation and
Operation of Meters) Regulations,2006 as amended from time to time as no
check meters have been installed.
56. Some of the stakeholders also stated that data from the RTUs installed by the
wind and solar generators is directly received by the SLDC, however, the
same is not shared with the generator or the QCA. Without such data, it is
not possible to calibrate forecasting models and achieve the desired accuracy
in the schedules.
57. Various other stakeholders have made the following suggestions:
(1) All Data related to DSM to be made available to generators and QCA.

(2) 15 min injection data received by SLDC through STOMS on which
deviation charges billing is effected may be retransmitted on real time
basis to QCA and Generator.
(3) SLDC schedule needs to be made accessible to QCA on day ahead
basis or at least one-hour before 10:00AM.
(4) DSM statements to be published within a month.
(5) SLDC should provide time block-wise weekly statement of state's
deviation in Northern Region and corresponding time block-wise
statement of deviation of all wind and solar generators taken together
and deviation charges billed by NRLDC and SLDC.
(6) Data from SLDC to be made available to all QCA and generators,
through login credentials, for scheduling/ revising schedules.
(7) All ABT meters installed under STOM to be certified to meet specs of
interface meters as per CEA Regulations.
(8) ABT meters to be tested at the site for accuracy and time stamping in
the presence of representative of generators. Test reports to be
provided to the generators.
(9) SLDC/ RVPN to be directed to provide check meters as per the CEA
Regulations.
58. The RUVNL on behalf of the Discoms submitted that sharing of data by
SLDC would lead to higher accuracy in forecasting of power by the
generators. Apart from that, the generators should take all measures
necessary to ensure that the accuracy of forecasts increase with time. Their
forecasting models should be dynamic in order to cater to changing trends in
wind and solar generation. It is also submitted that synchronization of
STOMS meters with commercial meters is necessary to improve the
accuracy of forecasts.
SLDC’s response
59. SLDC submitted that the STOMS meter data is polled every 24 hours for
each of the meters through a scheduler and this automatic meter reading is
processed through the meter data management module (MDM) and after
validation, is available for calculation of Deviation Settlement Mechanism.

As such the actual meter data is available only after 4-5 days. Therefore, the
STOMS meter data used by SLDC for calculation of DSM is of no use for
day ahead as well as intraday RE forecasting and scheduling. However, by
the installation of check meter at RVPN GSS real time data can be fetched
by the QCA and generator.
60. SLDC further submitted that technical specifications of the required
Telemetry are already provided on the website of SLDC and the forecasting
done by SLDC is only to ensure grid stability. Further, as per the Electricity
Act 2003, SLDC cannot be involved in any commercial activities, therefore,
the petitioners’ contention that SLDC is itself a QCA to incorrect.
61. SLDC also submitted that the scheduling on the web portal is functional
since May 2018. The schedules are being uploaded by the QCAs from May
2018 onwards. Further, it is clarified by SLDC that receiving schedules
through e-mail is only a back-up arrangement for schedules to be taken in
case of a technical glitch in uploading of schedule on the website. Till date,
the schedules are being sent on these e-mail ids as a pre-caution measure
only.
62. SLDC further submitted that the STOMS meters are time synchronized and
time tagged and is automatically corrected through a time scheduler. There is
no requirement to synchronize it with the already installed commercial
meters for the monthly actual generation as the DSM charges are strictly
calculated on the basis of STOMS meter reading and the schedule uploaded
by the QCAs for their respective PSS. It is also submitted by SLDC that all
the RE interface points are having ABT meters for the purpose of
DSM.SLDC also stated that generators can also synchronize their meter
through GPS.
63. In response to the submission of maintaining separate records and account of
time blockwise schedules, actual generation and deviation of generators,
SLDC submitted that the actual generation data is available in the Joint
meter reading and the blockwise generation data is available with the
generator or their OEM. As regards the blockwise schedule, the same is

available with the respective QCA, which can be shared with the generators.
As far as blockwise DSM charges are concerned, the same can be fetched
from the respective de-pooling mechanism.
64. SLDC submitted the QCA wise PSS wise accuracy reports clearly
indicates that forecasting and scheduling in a desert state like Rajasthan
is very much possible, further to a large extent the same is within the
15% band. It is incorrect to state that ABT meters have not been installed
at number of sites. All the RE interface points are having ABT meters for
the purpose of DSM. The SLDC has already requested the generators to
install check meter at RVPN GSS level from where real time data can be
fetched by the QCA and same could be accessed (when made available
by the QCA) by the QCA/Generator. In this respect a metering
arrangement to fetch the real time data have already been developed by
the M/s AMP Engineers, Bikaner and one of the QCA namely M/s
Manikaran Analytics Ltd. is already in the process to install the same.
Early installation of the check meters would be possible only when the
RE generators at the PSS level coordinate and provide the necessary
infrastructure.
QCA’s response
65. Regarding IWPA’s comments on non-availability or non-sharing of required
technical specifications between the QCA, SLDC and Generators,
Manikaran Analytics Limited (MAL) stated that it has been constantly
providing all the required information/ details and updating SLDC regarding
such specifications subject to the availability of the same by the Generators.
66. MAL also submitted that there were detailed discussions on planning of data
telemetry, communications and forecast in presence of the various wind
generators and IWPA’s comment regarding no consultation with the
generators is not correct.
67. As regards the suggestion of IWPA regarding regulation 22 in relation to
procedure which ought to be adopted, being that the generator wise forecast
and time block wise schedule should be submitted by the QCA to

SLDC,MAL submitted that the appointment of QCA is related to all the
members of the PSS and therefore, the data to be provided by the
QCA to the SLDC is only in relation to the PSS as a whole.
68. REConnect Energy and Statkraft submitted that SLDC may be directed to
provide STOMS meter data to QCA on a real-time basis and clear
timelines may be provided to generators to provide real-time plant level
data to QCA. It is also submitted that QCA may be allowed to put the
modem on interconnection points of PSS or at STOMS meters
Force majeure condition to be defined in case of extreme weather conditions
resulting in congestion / unscheduled curtailment.
69. Tanot Wind Power Pvt Ltd and IWPA submitted that during extreme
weather condition, the forecaster may predict higher power but the system
may have to be shutdown as per safety standards, which may lead deviations
even more than 35%. Accordingly, they requested that period for extreme
weather conditions period should be kept out of the DSM calculations and
extreme weather condition may be suitably defined in the Procedure. It is
further submitted that if the deviations are due to grid failure, the period
during the grid non-availability plus 6-time blocks or next revision time
block, whichever is earlier, post resumption should be considered as the
Force Majeure as there is no possibility of revising the schedules till such
time.
70. It is also submitted that the wide discretion has been given to the SLDC
regarding curtailment. SLDC must suitably compensate the generators for
the loss of power during the curtailment or shutdown period on the basis of
the forecast as given by the QCA or generator as the wind generation is not
uniform throughout the year.
71. Tanot Wind Power Pvt Ltd further submitted that SLDC should intervene to
ensure procurement or installation of requisite equipment etc. to carry out

accurate forecasting and reduce the burden on generators on failure to meet
the scheduled generation.
72. Various other stakeholders shared similar views.
73. RUVN on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms submitted that prediction of
force majeure conditions is a part of weather forecasting and IMD is the
agency responsible for weather forecasting and as per the Regulations,
SLDC is responsible for the collection of weather forecast data from IMD or
any forecasting agency appointed by it. Extreme weather conditions exists in
many parts of the country and several such states have been able to cope up
with the same and run wind and solar generating plants.
SLDC’s response
74. SLDC stated weather forecasting is the essence of RE scheduling and
therefore exempting any weather condition may give liberty to the Grid
operator to handle the situation during this period without the support of
regulatory framework, which consequently may jeopardize the stability of
the Grid during such period and would further frustrate the very object and
purpose with which the RERC RE Forecasting Regulations were framed.
The extreme weather conditions can be incorporated by the QCA while
giving the forecast as it is permitted to revise its schedule16 times as per the
regulation intra-day and there is no requirement of including extreme
weather conditions in force majeure conditions in the DSM procedure. It is
submitted by SLDC that forecasting and scheduling in a desert state like
Rajasthan are very much possible within the 15% band.
Issues related to QCA:
75. IWPA submitted that SLDC had issued a notice for appointment of QCA
within 15 days of the release of the DSM procedure, whereas, as per the
Regulations, QCA was to be nominated based on consensus and on mutually
agreed terms and conditions amongst the wind and solar generators. Since
failure in the appointment of QCA would have led to a disconnection from

RVPN grid, the wind and solar generators were forced to appoint QCAs.
Therefore, generators were not given enough time for selection of QCA and
the process was conducted in a forceful and coercive manner. The
generators need to be granted reasonable time to examine and assess the
technical expertise, infrastructure, past experience, duties and
responsibilities and other issues.
76. IWPA further submitted that there is no provision in the DSM
Regulations which binds the QCA to provide the schedules with a
periodic revision to the individual generators or to one which has
appointed the QCA, due to which it is impossible for the generator to
keep a check on the work which the QCA is performing on their behalf.
Therefore, the generators must also be made entitled to receive the
forecast, schedule and periodic revision which QCA submits to SLDC.
77. IWPA submitted that under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 4 there is no
provision for the parallel responsibility of STU/SLDC of coordination
with the QCA for metering, data collection and other connected work.
This is required to be included in the Regulation as coordination is not a
one-sided affair. On the basis of the experience of last 14·15 months as
gathered by the generators after implementation of the DSM
Regulations 2017 from1.2.2018 the petitioner Association has noted
that QCA’s, which selected, appointed in compelled circumstances by
the generators, are not getting any cooperation, assistance, coordination
from the STU/ SLDC and other agencies in forecasting, scheduling and
settlement of deviation charges due to which it has become impossible
for the QCAs' to perform their duties and responsibilities as provided
by the Hon'ble Commission under the Regulations. Therefore, the
Commission may provide for equal responsibility of the STU/SLDC for
coordination with the QCA. In the event of non-cooperation, some penal
provision must be provided as that none of the sides may misuse its
dominant position which can adversely affect the generation of power,
revenue and financial liabilities of the generator. The Regulation has no
inbuilt mechanism/procedure for commercial settlement. Due to lack of

coordination between the QCA and the SLDC, forecasting and
scheduling has not been done by the QCA properly and therefore, the
charges, which have been raised till now are arbitrary causing an undue
financial burden on the generators. The generators will have to pay the
charges which have been raised by SLDC and accepted without
opposition by the QCA. In the event of any fault on the part of the QCA
or SLDC / STU, there is no provision in the Regulation 4 or in the entire
regulation which binds both the above agencies/authorities in respect of
illegal and/or incorrect calculation of deviation and commercial
settlement of deviation charges under the DSM regulations. It is has
proposed to make necessary amendments in this Regulation to provide
that the commercial settlements be made in a tripartite manner so that,
before imposing the financial liability in the form of deviation charges on
the generators, a proper opportunity of hearing be provided so that the
generator is not unnecessarily burdened with the charges due to the
negligence and fault of the QCA and/or SLDC /STU.
78. IWPA further submitted that each pooling station should have provision
of more than one QCA. The individual QCA is misusing their
monopolistic power and authority due to which generator suffer
financially as QCAs are not performing their duties under the
Regulations. Further, providing more than one QCA will generate
competition amongst the QCAs in performing their duties. The non-
performing QCA can be replaced by the performing QCA. QCA having
the consent of more than 51% generator at any pooling station can act as
the lead QCA and other QCA, as may be selected by the generator, can
act as the subordinate QCA. The lead QCA will collate forecasts
and schedules received from subordinate QCAs which will be
submitted to the SLDC. This will not only provide for better
forecasting and scheduling but will also protect the interest of
the generators so that they will not be penalized because of
negligent, carelessness and non-performance of the duties and
responsibilities by the QCA under the DSM Regulations, 2017.

This argument was also supported by Tanot Wind Power Pvt. Ltd and
other stakeholders.
79. IWPA as well as Tanot Wind Power Pvt. Ltd submitted that
OEM/developer’s responsibility should be clearly defined in the regulation.
OEMs should be made more accountable. If OEMs do not share real time
/historic data with IPPs / QCA, it may result in higher penalties in the form
of DSM charges on the generators. It is also submitted that a standardized
and transparent contract amongst the QCA, SLDC and generators may be
specified and the same may further be extended to the OEMs.
80. IWPA submitted that, the DSM charges informed to the QCAs by
respondent SLDC pooling stations wise could not be de-pooled as all the
QCAs are not technically equipped, expert and they have not
been able to do the proper, systematic and accurate forecasting and
scheduling and the permitted periodic revision under the Regulations and
therefore, the working and performance of the QCA and SLDC need to be
tested.
81. IWPA submitted that Clause 5 of the Framework is completely silent about
the procedure for inviting the companies to act as QCA in the geographical
condition of Rajasthan for wind and solar generators. The three QCAs were
selected based on self-designed formula/ methodology by the SLDC without
even inviting suggestions/comments of the generators. The one-sided
framework was prepared to favor the SLDC and the QCA and for all
compliance and liabilities, the generators have been made responsible and to
suffer the financial burden. Before registering a QCA, the SLDC should to
have tested their capabilities. A twelve-month trial period needs to be
provided for any QCA to prove its performance and after assessing the
performance a QCA should be registered by the SLDC. Thereafter the
generators are informed by the SLDC about the available registered QCAs.
Further generators should have the flexibility to change QCA either due to
under performance or other reason as and when required with 30 days prior
notice to SLDC.

82. It is also submitted by IWPA that there is no provision for sharing the
schedule and revision with the generators in the Framework. The
amendment may be made in the same so that a provision may be made that
periodic schedule and revision thereon should be reflected on the web-portal
with the sharing of data with the generator also and the generator should
have the right to make the changes, if any, in the schedule.
83. IWPA submitted that there is no provision in the Regulations/ Framework
which binds for the timely calculation and communication of proper and
correct deviations and deviation charges by the SLDC to the QCA and
further communication by the QCA to the generators after de-pooling the
deviations and deviation charges. There is a need for a suitable amendment
by providing a clause that in case the SLDC delays the communication of
the deviation and deviation charges as per Regulation and framework then
first, the QCA shall not be responsible till the time all the issues are resolved
between the SLDC and QCA and thereafter the generators will not be
responsible till de-pooling of deviations and deviation charges and
communication of same to individual generator by the QCA takes place. Till
this process is completed no penal charges should be levied against the
generators. In case the SLDC or QCA fails to perform their respective duties
regarding deviation and deviation charges beyond two months, then the
charges for the respective months shall stand waived and will be non-
recoverable. This amendment is necessary because after enforcement of
DSM Regulations and the framework from 1.2.2018, SLDC and QCAs have
failed to perform their important duties and further, the QCA, which was
informed the deviation charges with huge delay by SLDC has further failed
in de-pooling the deviation charges generator wise till today. The charges of
the month June, July, August, September 2018 were communicated with
huge delay and then revised with a significant delay which reflects the
carelessness, negligence, non-professional working style of SLDC and the
lack of experience of QCA. Therefore, the previous charges are ought to be
declared as unrecoverable by the Commission considering the facts and
circumstances of the case.

84. IWPA regarding qualification of QCA under the Clause 6 of the framework
submitted that the Partnership Firm alone /or in collaboration /association
with experience software provider/ foreign companies etc., and sole
proprietorship concern having required technical and financial expertise
under the Regulations and the framework should also be allowed to operate
as QCAs. It is further submitted by IWPA that under Clause 6(b) of the
Framework, SLDC has provided that QCA shall have fully functional
forecasting and scheduling tools to obtain the desired output. However, there
is no provision to test the equipment, software and experienced manpower
who will handle the responsibilities and duties of forecasting, scheduling and
deviation under the Regulation. It is further requested that a provision may
also be made that QCA shall be registered after testing the operational
requirements and capabilities for 12 months and those QCAs with accurate
forecasting and scheduling and minimum deviations shall be selected
/registered in the order of merit.
85. IWPA regarding requirement of experience of wind and or solar power
forecasting and scheduling for 500 MW projects and experience of minimum
one year with appropriate accuracy level submitted that there are certain
pooling stations in Rajasthan which itself have the capacity of approximately
500 MW and QCA having the maximum capacity of handling 500 MW
cannot be expected to do the forecasting and scheduling for a pooling station
having the capacity equal to the capacity of QCA. Further, any company,
partnership firm, association etc., which intends to act as a QCA in
Rajasthan must prove its performance and capabilities by doing the
forecasting and scheduling for 12-months under the trial period. Further, the
company, partnership firm etc. must have the capacity more than the total
Capacity of all pooling stations which it intends to handle in the State of
Rajasthan.
86. IWPA with reference to the net worth requirement under the Clause 6(f), (g),
(h) and (i) of the Framework submitted that the financial net worth should be
increased to at least Rs. 10 crores from Rs 1.5 crores so that only well

qualified and financially sound companies, partnership firms, associations
etc. can participate and after trial are requested to QCA.
87. IWPA submitted that Regulation 13 of the Regulations authorizes the SLDC
to prepare "Procedure for implementation of the framework on forecasting
and scheduling for RE Generators". SLDC has framed the procedure in one
sided manner where there is no liability of SLDC and all the burden put on
QCA and generators, therefore, the Commission itself should make the new
framework/review the present framework by initiating
comments/suggestions of all stakeholders.
88. Tanot Wind Power Pvt Ltd in their submissions submitted that the current
regulation does not allow IPPs / generators to change QCAs before 3 years
and limited options are available to choose QCA (only four QCAs), it is
requested that IPPs / generator should be given the flexibility to change the
QCAs after one year. As it will be helpful to IPPs shifting to multiple QCAs
according to their convenience and benefits based on the forecast accuracy.
Continuing with a bad QCA may lead to financial implications to IPPs only.
89. Green Energy Association stated that there are there are several generators
that have neither given consent to appoint QCA nor deposited the required
payment security to the respondent. Therefore, the statements issued by the
SLDC have no meaning as several generators have not given consent. Also,
without action on such generators of respondent implements these
regulations, it is to determine to these generators that are following the law.
90. Rajasthan Sun Technique has submitted that the appointed QCAs do not
have forecasting tools/software and prior experience, competence and
exposure to forecast schedule of the generation of CSP. Generators should
be allowed to act as a QCA.
91. One of the stakeholders del2infinity submitted that provisions may also be
incorporated in the procedure for the replacement of QCA and allowing
submission of forecasts generators individually and independently. The
unique login id and passwords may also be provided for each pooling station
to generators individually.

92. Various other stakeholders, re-iterated the above and requested for change in
procedure for allowing flexibility in choosing/changing the QCA.,
93. RUVNL on behalf of the Discoms submitted that the OEMs are private
entities and are not directly involved in injecting power to the grid. It is the
responsibility of the generators to ensure that all necessary data are obtained
from OEMs in order to ensure smooth operations.
94. It is submitted submitted on behalf of the Discoms that the appointment of
QCA is based on mutual consensus among the generators and the minimum
qualifications requirements provided in RERC DSM Regulations. In case the
generators feel the need to change a QCA, a regulated amount of flexibility
should be provided, keep in view the interests of all parties involved. Thus,
the Commission may take an appropriate step in this direction. It is
submitted that the generators/ IPPs should study the best practices followed
across various states and incorporate the same in their agreements with the
QCA in order to avoid any sort of dispute
QCA’s response
95. Manikaran Analytics Ltd. (MAL) submitted that several meetings were
conducted regarding the appointment of QCAs and the appointment of QCA
was done after detailed deliberation taking explicit consent of all the
generators. MAL and REConnect submitted that SLDC did not register or
appoint QCA by themselves through their self-designed mechanism,
instead, the same was done only on the basis of the consent letters
received from the Generators for their respective PSSs in accordance
with the regulations.
96. MAL and REConnect submitted the consent granted by the generators
was unconditional and without any coercion or undue influence.
Once the generators have themselves taken into consideration the
expertise and the experience of the QCA, and thereafter decided to
appoint them as QCA, there is no scope left of any situation of collusion
between the QCA and the SLDC.

97. MAL submitted that they have the required qualification and expertise
for handling all the transactions in relation to forecasting and
scheduling in the State of Rajasthan. They highlighted that, before
the promulgation of DSM Regulations, 2017, they were already
involved in the activities of scheduling and forecasting for various
major Generators in various states including Rajasthan. They had been
functioning as a forecasting and scheduling agency much prior to the
enforcement of the DSM Regulations, 2017. Further, they referred
their geographical representation evidencing that they are performing the
task of forecasting scheduling and period i.e., revisions of about 26000
MW capacity of power, in the entire country and thus have the
necessary experience and expertise in the said field. In addition to this,
their expertise in the said field has also been acknowledged by various
wind generators, such as ReNew Power, Sitac Management &
Development Private Limited, IIIIL&FS Wind Power Services Limited,
Suzlon etc., who have issued experience certificates to them.
REConnect also submitted that they have also been appointed as a
forecasting agency by Gujarat SLDC after an international tender for the
same. Similarly, they have been as one of the three forecasting agencies
for Power Grid’s REMC project.
98. Regarding the posting of the periodic schedule on the web portal and
sharing the same with the generator, who should further have the
right to make any changes in the schedule, MAL submitted that a
QCA, including them, is an expert body which specializes in
providing forecasting schedule and periodic revision services,
therefore, there is no requirement for the generators to further make
any changes to the periodic schedule, which will not only delay the
process, but will also lead to various discrepancies which would, in
effect, jeopardize the performance of the QCA, as well as may lead to
further deviations on account of the wind generators.
99. Regarding the submission of IWPA for raising the net-worth requirement
from Rs 1.5 Cr to at least Rs 10 Cr, MAL submitted that the net worth

provided under any qualification criteria is only indicative in nature.
The net worth assessment of any entity is done to ascertain whether it is
capable of investing a particular amount of equity in the establishment
of a business. The net worth is assessed in order to ascertain that in case
of dissolution of the entity, the said entity can meet its liability. IWPA
has completely overlooked the fact that any business requires debt in
addition to equity infusion. Therefore, the net worth as already stated
hereinabove should not be the sole criteria for appointing of any
entity as QCA. Furthermore, by providing a minimum net worth of
Rs. 1.5 Crore, an opportunity is provided to various small private
players to do business in the State of Rajasthan. The proposition of
the IWPA to increase the net worth to Rs.10 Crs is violative of Article
19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India, as it proposes to restrict the
rights of any individual to do trade and business of their choice.
100. As regards submission of IWPA about the creation of a website of SLDC as
per clause 14(g) on which QCA shall upload the schedules and the revisions,
MAL submitted that Regulation 14 (g) of the DSM Procedure provides
for an alternative way for uploading / transmitting the schedules and
the revisions. Therefore, the entire process of collecting data,
forecasting and scheduling is being carried out by the MAL in
consonance with the SLDC in a very smooth manner as set out in the
Procedure.
101. Regarding the submission of IWPA that QCA to have a local office in
Rajasthan for efficient coordination, MAL submitted that the entire
transaction of the deviation settlement is being done on the online web portal
in the entire country. Hence, there is no requirement to open a local office.
102. RE Connect submitted that the date of commercial implementation was
known well in advance, even if the detailed procedures were released later
and there are several generators who are members of IWPA who have even
till date (after almost two years of the notification of the Regulations) neither
appointed a QCA nor entered into a contract to comply with DSM
regulations..

103. REConnect regarding expertise submitted that they have been successfully
working in India since 2013 and they have also been appointed as a
forecasting agency by Gujarat SLDC after an international tender for the
same. Similarly, they have been as one of the three forecasting agencies for
Power Grid’s REMC project. They also placed on the records t h e
performance of selective pooling stations with real-time data (includes
data with time lag >30 minutes) and pooling stations where only
partial real-time data is provided.
104. As regards the IWPA’s statement that the QCA has no stake in achieving
higher accuracy REConnect submitted that QCA is a service provider, it
provides data analytics and software service. It is incorrect to say that a QCA
has no incentive to achieve higher accuracy. Several contracts with clients
include a reduction in fees in case accuracy is lower than the threshold
agreed in the contract. If the principle of IWPA is followed the weather
forecast provider should be made responsible for losses due to floods or
droughts. On the issue MAL submitted that QCA is a mere facilitator
providing the service of forecasting and scheduling including
revisions and their responsibility is limited to assist the wind
generators to reduce their losses on account of deviations. They have
a limited role in providing the aforementioned services. Further, for
such services QCA charges only a minimal fee, and has no share in
revenue with the generators. It needs to be appreciated that the
forecasting is a matter of predictive science and can never be with any
pinpoint accuracy.
105. MAL and REConnect submitted that they have many times informed the
wind generators about the schedule and revisions. They substantiated their
claims by providing copies of emails for the same. The same has also been
stated by REConnect and emails have been provided as proofs.
106. MAL regarding coordination with SLDC submitted that several
communications exchanged between the SLDC and them which clearly
shows the assistance provided by the SLDC in forecasting schedule and
settlement of deviation charges.

107. Regarding having more than one QCA, MAL stated that appointment of
one QCA per PSS, is a thoughtful and beneficial provision for the
members of the PSS as it helps the wind generators, as well as the said
QCA, to efficiently coordinate between them and helps in proper
collection and storage of relevant data regarding the forecasting
schedule and revisions. In case more than one QCA is appointed, the same
would lead to creation of extraneous problems wherein the data of one
generator will have to be shared with another QCA in time-bound manner,
which will be a complex procedure, leading to a situation of chaos owing to
miscommunication and lack of coordination between a wind/RE generator
and QCA. Further, both the QCAs may give different instructions to
the generators and in the event of one QCA is less accurate than the
other in its forecasting, then the penalty/ financial burden will be passed
on those generators which are functioning more efficiently owing to
their more efficient QCA.
108. REConnect regarding having more than one QCA stated that Forecasting is
required to be done at the grid interconnection point, and therefore for the
entire pooling station (and sometimes including more than one pooling
station). Pooling station is the fundamental unit for forecasting, as
recognized in various regulations like that of CERC, Model regulations of
FOR, etc. In the Statement of Reason of Framework on Forecasting,
Scheduling and Imbalance Handling for Variable Renewable Energy
Sources (Wind and Solar), CERC clearly outlines Pooling Stations as the
point for the generation of Forecast. It is submitted by REConnect that the
suggestion of IWPA is also impractical because forecast models are not
developed for “individual generators” or individual turbines. On many
pooling stations, there are several generators with individual turbines, with
capacity as low as 0.6 MW. Akal PSS is a good example - it has a capacity
of 277 MW but has 86 different asset owners. If the logic supported by
IWPA is followed theoretically there could be as many as 107 QCA’s at a
single pooling station.”

109. As regards the issue raised by IWPA that till today QCAs' have not
been able to do the proper, systematic and accurate forecasting
and scheduling and the permitted periodic revision under the
Regulation, REConnect submitted that they provide all schedules and
revisions made to the generators as an email and also as part of a web
portal. Further, IWPA has made the claim that “permitted periodic
revisions” have not been made without providing any evidence for the
same. MAL submitted that they have the necessary expertise and
experience in the field of forecasting and scheduling, which has also
been evidenced from the certificates of experience issued by various
wind generators. Further, they have been efficiently providing Day
ahead as well as intra-day schedules and have been making revisions as
and when required in accordance to the procedure on day to day basis
after analysing the various parameters required for accurate forecasting
and scheduling and the copy of the same is marked to the concerned
generator.
110. Statkraft Markets India Private Limited submitted that there should be a
standard tripartite agreement between RE Generator, QCA and SLDC where
the responsibility of each stakeholder shall be defined. The commercial part
of same shall be kept open to be decided mutually between QCA and
Generators. They also stated that competition among QCA at PSS is a
welcome step and Procedures should also be framed to allow generators to
switch from one QCA to another.
SLDC’s response
111. As regards the appointment of QCA, SLDC submitted that that there are
only 4 major QCAs whose expertise and experience in the field is known to
IWPA as more than one and half years have passed after the effective date of
implementation of the Forecasting and Scheduling Regulation. This time
was sufficient to examine and to assess the technical expertise, infrastructure
and use of technical equipment, software etc of the QCAs

112. As regards binding the QCA to provide the schedule with a periodic
revision to the individual generator SLDC submitted that the same is outside
the purview of the Commission as it is a purely contractual matter between
the QCA and the Generator. To resolve the issue, SLDC has asked the
generators to install the check meters at the PSS level from where real time
data can be fetched by the QCA and the same could be displayed on the
website of the SLDC when made available by the QCA, which will also be
accessible to the Generators.
113. Regarding assigning the parallel responsibility SLDC submitted that it is
not a merely department but a statutory body and is well aware of its
responsibility under the Electricity Act 2003 and RERC’s DSM
Regulations.
114. With respect to the request for a standard draft for agreements between QCA
and IPPs, SLDC submitted that the agreement is purely a contractual matter
between the Generator and the QCA which needs no interference of the
Commission.
115. Regarding providing more than one QCA at a pooling station and single
QCA misusing monopolistic power and authority, SLDC submitted that
once the generators install their own meter, the same can be time
synchronized with GPS and this data can be used for the de-pooling purpose.
When this data is uploaded on the website of the SLDC and the same will be
accessible to the generators. Thus, there is no question of misusing of power
and authority by QCAs.
116. SLDC submitted that the current Regulation/procedure provides the option
to change QCA and the generators at pooling stations can change the QCA
at any time. Two such cases of change in QCA have already been done.
117. Regarding accountability of the OEM/developer, SLDC submitted that if
deemed fit by RERC, the OEM/ developer may be made accountable so that
dispute due to non-accountability of OEMs can be avoided.

118. In order to increase accountability of QCAs, SLDC submitted that 20% of
the block wise DSM charges corresponding to absolute error >35% may be
borne by the QCA for the respective PSS.
De-pooling mechanism of DSM charges
119. IWPA submitted there is no provision in Regulations or Procedure for
commercial settlements on behalf of the generators in respect of the
deviation charges, including state pool account through SLDC. There is
lack of coordination between the QCA and the SLDC, forecasting and
scheduling have not been done by the QCA properly. In the event of any
fault on the part of the QCA or SLDC / STU, there is no provision in the
entire regulation which binds both the above agencies / authorities in
respect of illegal and/or incorrect calculation of deviation and
commercial settlement of deviation charges. It is submitted that the
commercial settlements be made in a tripartite manner so that, before
imposing the financial liability in the form of deviation charges on the
generators, a proper opportunity of hearing be provided so that the
generator is not unnecessarily burdened with the charges due to the
negligence and fault of the QCA and/or SLDC /STU.
120. IWPA regarding depooling function of QCA submitted that the generators
cannot pay the deviation charges until· and unless same are properly
calculated and de-pooled by the QCA and then informed to the individual
generators. It is submitted that a proper mechanism may be provided for
settlement of issues in respect of forecasting and scheduling between the
QCA & SLDC. In the absence of a mechanism of de-pooling of the
deviation charges and till communication of the individual generator, no
penal charges may be taken from the generators by SLDC under the
framework. It is submitted that a responsibility may be placed on the QCA to
de-pool the energy deviations and charges and communicate within a
maximum period of 15 days after resolving all issues with SLDC, failing
which the QCA shall be responsible for the respective month charges

including the penalty of 0.04% as provided in the framework. Also, the
Commission needs to specify the de-pooling mechanism and guideline
required to be followed by QCAs across state uniformly.
121. Tanot Wind Power Venture Pvt. Ltd and other stakeholders also
submitted that Commission should specify the de-pooling
mechanism as there is no fixed or approved de-pooling mechanism
in the Regulation and every QCA is adopting their own &
unscientific de-pooling methods.
122. RUVN on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms submitted that the de-
pooling of DSM charges is to be done by the QCA by a method
mutually agreed upon by the QCA and the generators. If the
generators feel that the mechanism needs revision, then after
mutual discussion, the same may be taken up with the QCA.
QCA’s response
123. As regards the statement of IWPA that QCA’s forecasts are not
within the exemption band REConnect submitted that the
permitted deviation of 15% of capacity has to be achieved in every
15 minutes. Thus, a highly accurate prediction in one time-block
does not mean that the next time-block with all have the same
result.
124. Manikaran Analytics Limited (MAL) and REConnect Energy
submitted that the methodology for de-pooling of the DSM
charges is to be mutually determined between the QCA and the
generators and the present Regulations provide an opportunity and
independence to the wind generators to devise a methodology in
consultation with the QCA, which is favorable and more robust.
REConnect submitted that de-pooling methodology under the
approved procedure must also cover the scenarios where no data,
only partial data is made available by the generators.

125. Statkraft submitted that after consultation with various RE
generators they have developed de-pooling mechanism and it
requested that the procedure should provide that SLDC can
provide LV side data to QCA in time bound manner for smooth
de-pooling and SLDC as Nodal Agency shall be responsible for
coordinating with DISCOM and STU to collect and provide
metering data to QCA’s and Generators.
SLDC’s response
126. SLDC submitted that de-pooling should be as per the mutually
agreed mechanism between the generators and the QCA which has
commercial implications. Each QCA may have its own methods
for de-pooling and unless the same is proved to be unscientific, the
said method needs not to be interfered by this Commission. For
making OEMs accountable, SLDC submitted they should also be brought
under the ambit of Regulations.
High quantum of deviation charges
Stakeholders comments/ suggestions/ objections
127. IWPA submitted that the deviation charges as provided in the
Regulation are very heavy and will financially destroy the
generators. There may be some rationale in putting restrictions and
preparing schedule as far as excess generation and injection into
the grid by the generator is concerned. But in case of less
generation in the off-peak month, levy of deviation charges is not
reasonable. The generator who has established the power project
of wind or solar has the object to generate the power to the
maximum capacity of the machine, which is never achieved. The
area-wise/ location wise data of generation of each generator is
made available to RVPNL and other authorities and, therefore,
there cannot be any intention of the generator to deviate or to
violate the grid discipline.

128. IWPA submitted that the deviation charges may be restricted upto
30% only and not beyond that whereas the regulation provides for
unlimited charges i.e. beyond 35%, which is not reasonable and
justified looking into the special geographical condition of
Rajasthan. It is submitted that the per unit deviation charges
should be reduced/reviewed and be made reasonable as the tariffs
for the wind power have reduced drastically. It is requested that
deviation charges may be revised as per the current market
conditions i.e., 30p and 60p for the number of units deviated in the
range 15% to 25%, 25% to 35% only. REConnect also submitted
to rationalize the per unit deviation charges considering the recent
PPA rates. Various stakeholders also requested to revise the DSM
charges. In addition both IWPA and Tanot wind power also
submitted that there is a need to cap the total deviation charges
payable on account of deviation by a wind/solar generator(s).In
this regard IWPA suggested that capping of 3 paisa per unit or any
such other rate as may be stipulated by the Commission from time
to time through a separate order.
129. RUVNL on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms submitted that the
deviation charges are nominal and, in fact, on a lower side as
compared to other states in the country and to substantiate the
same they also submitted the comparative position of deviation
charges across the States.
SLDC’s response
130. SLDC submitted that it is true that generators do not have control
over the wind, being a natural phenomenon, however, forecasting
of wind is being done throughout the country and as such
generation can be matched with the schedule.
131. As regards the capping of the DSM charges, SLDC submitted that
the same is not favourable for the grid discipline as once the
generator reaches the limit, the situation will be uncontrollable

which is against the purpose for which such regulatory measures
are taken. The capping is against the spirit and objects of the
Forecasting and Scheduling Regulations, 2017 and therefore,
should not be permitted.
Mock run/trial period before implementation.
132. IWPA submitted that before making the regulations the APERC
and KERC provided a testing/trial period ranging from 2 months
to the QCA, generators and the SLDC but in the State of Rajasthan
no such testing/trial period was granted. Rajasthan has a typical
geographical condition with extreme weather and QCAs and
SLDC are not having any experience of forecasting and scheduling
under the conditions of Rajasthan. Further, for doing the
forecasting and scheduling accurate weather forecast data which
also contains the wind velocity is needed. Indian Metrological
Department (IMD) provides the data of wind forecast with the
seven days advance schedule on its website and on that basis the
QCAs are required to do the forecasting and scheduling under the
Regulations. No proper, accurate, error free forecasting and
scheduling is possible on the basis of seven days advance IMD
data about the wind velocity. IMD is also not equipped to make a
day ahead 15 minutes time block wise forecast. Practically no such
data, information about weather forecast including wind velocity
and other information is provided by the IMD or any other agency
to the QCAs or generators. Therefore, proper and correct
forecasting and scheduling is not possible in the present situation
in Rajasthan. For proper, accurate and systematic forecasting and
scheduling the QCAs or generators, as the case may be, must get
the weather forecast which includes the data of wind velocity on
daily basis with the time schedule of at least 30 minutes time
block. The IMD needs to be directed through State Government by

the Commission to provide the required information /data to the
QCAs or generators or on its website.
133. Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd submitted that QCA’s
forecasting and scheduling models require time to mature to the
desired accuracy level. There is a need of 12 to 18 months period
of the mock run, to work closely with QCAs/SLDC / generators to
reduce the gap in eliminating errors in the system/software/ data
transmission after completion of groundwork (meter installation,
time stamping & installation). Thus, mock run/trial period of six
months is needed before the commercial implementation.
134. IWPA submitted that due to lack of expertise, data, technology
issues and including their own incompetency QCAs have failed in
revising the schedule which has resulted into the serious
deviations. The QCA in unable to depool the deviation charges
calculated by the respondent RVPNL, the same should not be
recovered from the generators till the time the QCAs are able to
perform their mandatory duties under the Regulations.
135. IWPA submitted that the generators who have given their consent
for appointment of respective QCA should not be penalized for the
lack of coordination and cooperation between the QCA and SLDC
and lack of technical knowledge, expertise, infrastructure,
experience of QCA's under the typical geographical condition of
Rajasthan. It is submitted that QCA and SLDC should also be
made responsible for the deviation caused due to their own fault,
negligence, carelessness and non-performance of their mandatory
responsibilities and duties casted on them under the Regulations. It
should also be provided that SLDC shall have the right to recover
the deviation charges from the QCA only and not from the
generator for which the QCA is directly responsible.
136. Various other stakeholders have also submitted that till basic
infrastructure and facilities are available and systems stabilise,

implementation of Regulations should be deferred. Some of the
stakeholders have recommended a trial period of one year before
complete roll-out of these Regulations and have also requested for
waiver of DSM charges applied till date. It is also submitted that a
Pilot study be undertaken by the Commission and other key
stakeholders such as SLDC, QCAs and select generators.
137. RUVNL on behalf of the Discoms submitted that forecasting of
any quantity is done based on historical trends and practical
assumptions based on recent trends. Even if a period of 6 months
is provided for a trial run, the accuracy of the forecast will only
depend on recent trends and that is a highly dynamic process.
Thus, any length of trial period will not solve the issue. Accuracy
of forecasts can be improved by constantly adapting the
forecasting models with changing trends. In the absence of DSM
regulations with appropriate penalties for deviation, grid stability
can be significantly hampered and the Regulations should come
into effect at the earliest.
QCA’s response
138. MAL submitted that during the intervening/ gestation period
between the notification of the Regulations, and their
implementation, they functioned as a QCA, which can be termed
as the trial period. There was a sufficient time gap between the
notification of Draft DSM Regulations and implementation of the
same.
139. MAL regarding accurate weather forecast as an important
ingredient submitted that IMD provides the wind forecast with 7
(seven) days advance schedule on the basis of which QCAs are
required to do forecasting and scheduling. Therefore, QCA can
only provide a reasonable prediction. MAL in their submissions
also referred to the data of several other weather monitoring
agencies, including international agencies for the purpose of

seeking information and reducing the margin of error in
determining the wind velocity and other relevant parameters in
forecasting. The said data is updated at least twice a day in order
to arrive at the most accurate figure.
140. RE Connect submitted that the grievances were not justified since
the regulations were notified well in advance (14th September
2017) to the date of implementation of commercial aspects of the
forecasting regulation (1st January 2018; later 1st Feb 2018). The
date of commercial implementation was known well in advance,
even if the detailed procedures were released later.
141. Statkraft submitted that they are involved in Forecasting and
Scheduling activities in different markets across countries for
more than 10 years and they have developed inhouse tools and
also have an agreement with leading European forecast service
providers to provide forecasts for their clients across countries
where they operate including India. They are capable of providing
the services of Forecasting, Scheduling and Deviation Settlement
for the renewable energy plants in the State of Rajasthan.
SLDC’s response
142. SLDC submitted that the Regulations were promulgated on 14
September 2017 and sufficient time was available with the
generators to strengthen their SCADA system and they could have
asked the QCAs for trial run of their forecast. The Regulation were
initially to be implemented from 1.1.2018 which was extended to
1.2.2018. More than a year has passed since then and thus, there is
no requirement for a mock run or trial period.
143. SLDC further submitted that in addition to the information about
wind velocity provided by the Indian Metrological Department,
QCAs also take data from other national and international
metrological resources/ agencies.

144. SLDC submitted that the DSM calculations have been done by
them on the basis of the last revision made (generally the 16th) as
per the Forecasting and Scheduling Regulation 2017. It is not
mandatory to have revisions. In case no revision is required, the
last revision is taken into account for the purpose of calculating
DSM charges else the 16th
revision is taken. Therefore, the
calculations made by SLDC were strictly in terms of the
Regulations and therefore recoverable.
145. SLDC submitted that since the schedules are for the generator,
they need to generate as per the schedule provided and they need
to bear the deviation charges for any deviation from the schedule
will result into deviation charges, and not the QCAs. Once the
metering is done as suggested by the SLDC, there will be
transparency between QCA and Generators.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism
146. Tanot Wind Power Ventures Pvt. Ltd submitted that there is no
dispute resolution mechanism in the Regulations particularly in
case of disputes between SLDC and the QCAs/IPPs. Green Energy
Association submitted that disputes have arisen between generator
and SLDC which can only be decided by RERC as per Section 86
(1) (c) and (f) of the Electricity Act.
147. IWPA submitted that the framework is silent on the adjudication
of the dispute between the QCA and RE generator. The issue of
deviation charges under the DSM Regulations 2017 must be
decided by a Committee which must contain one member of the
SLDC, one independent technical member and one representative
of the generators so that the disputes may be decided in an
unbiased and transparent manner.

148. IWPA also submitted that under regulation 23 apart from SLDC,
the RE generator or QCA, as the case may be, may also be allowed
to approach the Commission for any difficulty arising due to any
regulation and framework.
149. Various other stakeholders have also that there is a need for
suitable Grievance Redressal Mechanism for adjudication of
disputes between SLDC, QCAs and Generators.
150. RUVNL on behalf of the Rajasthan Discoms stated that
Regulations provide for grievance redressal between QCA and
generators. It also provides for 'Removal of Difficulties' under the
procedure and in case there is a further requirement of dispute
resolution, the generators may approach the Commission directly.
SLDC’s response
151. SLDC submitted that Mechanism for Grievance Redressal has
been given in Clause 22 of the “Procedure for Implementation of
the framework on Forecasting and Scheduling for Renewable
Energy (RE) Generating Stations (Wind and Solar)”.
Applicability of Regulations on Concentrated Solar Projects (CSP)
152. Rajasthan Solar Association (RSA) submitted that Regulations
should not be made applicable to the solar thermal projects on
account of the following:
(1) While drafting the Regulations, only Solar Photovoltaic (PV) plants
and wind plants were analyzed for deriving penalty free band of +/-
15% as per Statement of Reasons (SoR) issued published by CERC on
“Framework on Forecasting, Scheduling and Imbalance Handling for
Variable Renewable Energy Sources (Wind and Solar).
(2) Accordingly, Available Capacity is defined in the said Regulations is
factoring solar inverter capacities only.

(3) Solar radiation consists of two components namely Diffused
irradiance and Direct normal irradiance. Diffused solar irradiance
cannot be concentrated
(4) CSP Technology is more sensitive to solar radiations which depends
on direct normal Irradiance (‘DNI’) compared to PV technology in
which generation is feasible even on diffused solar radiation and
hence accuracy of CSP generation forecast is very less.
(5) CSP technology is still under the experimentation stage in the country
and hence should not be subjected to such stringent Forecasting and
Scheduling Regulations.
(6) QCAs do not have tools and experience in forecasting of generation
CSP projects.
153. Rajasthan Sun Technique Energy Ltd submitted that the
Regulations are not applicable to them as their CSP plant does not
use inverter, thus, not specifically covered under the Available
Capacity (AvC) defined under these Regulations. They submitted
CSP uses steam turbine for electricity generation and is a separate
and distinct class from the solar PV plants and treating them under
the regulations and imposing charges will infringe on Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Godavari Green Energy also made the
submission that their plant is also based on the CSP technology
therefore not covered under the definition of the available capacity
and thus, regulations do not apply to them.
154. Godawari Green Energy Ltd (GGEL) submitted that the
fundamental basis of the Regulations is the determination of
‘Available capacity’ which contemplates only solar PV Generator
and not the solar thermal generators. It is submitted by them that
they are not selling any power to the Rajasthan Discoms but are
selling power to NVVNL only and also not supplying any
electricity for captive use or through OA and thus, they are not
covered under the definition of seller defined under Regulation
2(1)(t) of the regulations. Therefore, none of the conditions

stipulated under the Regulation 3(2) of the RERC Forecasting and
Scheduling Regulations are attracted and they are clearly excluded
from the ambit of the said Regulations.
SLDC’s response
155. SLDC submitted that the Regulations cover every type of solar
generator including CSP plant and deviation charges as per the
Regulations will be applicable. It is also submitted by SLDC that
mere execution of PPA and PSA would not absolve the generator
from the liability towards deviation. Merely because the generator
is not selling power to Discoms would not mean that the generator
would not be covered under the definition of seller. It is submitted
by SLDC that a suitable amendment should be made in the
Regulation defining the ‘Available Capacity (AvC)’ in case of
Solar Thermal generator. As per SLDC, AvC for such plants shall
be equivalent to its sum total of installed capacity of each unit in
generating plant which are in running condition (capable to
generate). In case of generating plant is having multiple generating
units then the Available Capacity shall be calculated on the basis
of the installed capacity of each generating unit.
Bifurcation of schedules between Intra State and Inter Sate Transactions and
computation of deviation charges thereof
156. Green Energy Association submitted that the current provision
does not have any mechanism whereby the inter-state and intra-
state transactions can be separately scheduled. SLDC has simply
adjusted the entire DSM at intra-state level which has artificially
inflated the inter-state DSM. The issue is worsened by the fact that
the per unit DSM charge for inter-state is far higher for the older
projects as the charges are 10%, 20% and 30% of PPA rate
(resulting in DSM charges sometimes upto Rs 1.8 or Rs 1.5 per
unit compared to Rs 0.50/unit for the first slab of DSM charges).

This approach is discriminatory against those projects that have an
inter-state sale component.
157. Godawari Green Energy Limited (GGEL) submitted that as per
PSA the allocation of the bundled power is governed by allocation
from NVVNL from time to time. Accordingly, they have no
control over such allocation to any of the Discoms. However, the
present methodology followed by SLDC for billing the deviation
changes, the adjustment for intra-state power first and remainder is
adjusted for inter-state power, is totally contrary to the
Regulations. Due to the energy adjustment of the intra-state level
has artificially inflated the inter-state DSM charges as the zero-
penalty band of (+/-) 15% of Available Capacity (AvC) would get
reduced substantially for the interstate transactions and even the
deviations (at plant capacity level) within permitted zero penalty
band would result into the higher penalty band for deviations for
interstate transactions. They also submitted illustrative example to
show the impact of above mentioned methodology.
158. GGEL ,Walwhan Solar AP Pvt Ltd and Rajasthan Sun Technique
submitted that as per the terms of the PPA, commercial billing of
the energy from their project to NVVNL is on the basis of the
actual energy supplied and this actual supply of energy after
bundling by NVVNL is ultimately allocated to the state in
proportion to the allocation of capacity to different states for
billing purpose by NVVNL. Thus, state does not receive intra-state
supply as the first charge but the actual energy injected is allocated
in proportion to the share of the respective states .In view of this,
the procedure for segregation of sales, is contrary to the
mechanism followed for commercial billing for energy supplied to
the State Discoms through NVVNL and hence the allocation of the
actual energy injected should be in proportion of the capacity
allocated among intra-state and inter-state. Rajasthan Solar
Association also submitted that the allocation of the actual energy

Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017

Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017

Similar to Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017 (20)

More from Das A. K.

More from Das A. K. (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Adjudication of dispute regarding RERC (Forecasting, Scheduling, Deviation Settlement and related matters of Solar and Wind Generation Sources) Regulations, 2017