MAWANA SUGARS LIMITED, NEW DELHI Vs. UTTAR PRADESH STATE LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, LUCKNOW AND NATIONAL LOAD DESPATCH CENTRE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, Mawana Sugars Limited, Dhampur Sugar Limited, Balrampur Chini Mills Limited, Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Ind. Ltd. and DCM Shriram Consolidated Limited are bagasse based co -generation plants in the State of Uttar Pradesh and have filed these petitions being aggrieved by the conduct of Uttar Pradesh State Load Despatch Centre for not certifying the Energy Injection data of these generators for the months of November and December 2011 and January 2012 for the purpose of issuance of Renewable Energy Certificates and consequent refusal by the National Load Despatch Centre to issue these certificates. These petitions have been made with similar facts and raise similar issues. Therefore, we have referred in this order to the facts of Mawana Sugars Limited as the representative case.

(2.) THE Petitioner, Mawana Sugars Limited, has submitted that it is a co -generating plant having three units namely, Mawana Sugar Works, Titwani Sugar Complex and Nanglamal Sugar Complex with installed capacities of 31.5, 22.0 and 12.4 MWs respectively. These units were accredited by Uttar Pradesh New Renewable Energy Development Agency (UPNEDA), which is the State Nodal Agency, on 22.9.2011 in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Promotion of Green Energy through the Renewable Purchase Obligations) Regulations, 2010. Subsequently, these units were registered on 13.10.2011 with the National Load Despatch Centre, which has been designated as the Central Agency under Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Recognition and Issuance of Renewable Energy Certificate for Renewable Energy Generation) Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "REC Regulations"). Pursuant to such accreditation and registration, the petitioner is eligible for issuance of RECs for the quantum of energy generated and injected after deducting the energy sold under preferential tariff. The Petitioner has submitted that during the months of November 2011, December 2011 and January 2012, the petitioner is eligible for RECs for the following quantum of energy:

(3.) IT is against the above factual context that the petitioner has filed the present petition. The Petitioner has submitted that the Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under section 79(1)(k) read with section 66 of the Act as the difficulty has arisen in this case on account of failure on the part of UPSLDC to verify the energy injection report in accordance with the REC Regulations and REC Procedure notified/approved by the Commission. The petitioner has submitted that unless the prayers are granted, apart from the petitioner losing vital commercial opportunity, there will be a direct impact on the REC market as the RECs legally generated cannot be issued and used by the obligated entities for redemption to meet their RPO obligations. The Petitioner has sought indulgence of the Commission under Regulation 15 of the REC Regulations and Para 10 of the REC Procedure to remove the difficulty arising out of the failure of UP SLDC to certify the energy injection data and to relax the timeline for submission of information to NLDC. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the Central Agency to issue RECs to the petitioner against the energy injection report submitted by the petitioner duly verified by the distribution company and pending issue of such directions, relax the timeline for grant of RECs to the petitioner.