Petition No. 1029 of 2015

BEFORE

THE UTTAR PRADESH ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION

LUCKNOW

Date of Order: 14.01.201 6

PRESENT:

1. 1. 2. 3.

IN THE M ATTER OF: To seek stay of operation of UPNEDA letter dated 26.05.2015

issued to petitioner for failing to commission 20 MW Solar Plant by 2 6.01.2015.

1. M/s Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd.,

239, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase - III, New Delhi 110019

2. M/s Hindustan Cleanenergy Ltd.,

239, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase - III, New Delhi 110019New Delhi 110019

--------------- Petitioner

AND

1. Director, Uttar Pradesh New and Renewable Energy Development Agency, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

2. Managing Director , UPPCL

Shakti Bhawan, 14 Ashok Marg, Lucknow 226001

Page 1 of 4

3. Indusind Bhank,

New Delhi Branch, Dr. Gopal Das Bhavan, 28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi.

--------------- Respondents

Printed by BoltPDF (c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.

Following were presents :

1. Sri V.P. Srivastava, CE (PPA), UPPCL

2. Sri S.K. Sinha, SE, (PPA), UPPCL

3. Sri Rajeev Srivastava, Advocate, UPPCL

4. Sri Nishant Shukla, Advocate UPNEDA,

5. Sri Mini Katariya, VP, Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd

6. Sri Pankaj Prakash, VP, Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd 6. Sri Pankaj Prakash, VP, Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd

7. Sri Abhynderi Srivastava, Manager Legal , Spinel Energy & Infra. Ltd

8. Sri Hemant Sahay, Advocate, Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd

9. Sri Pragy a Ohri, Advocate Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd.

ORDER

(Date of Hearing 22.12.2015)

1. M/s Moser Baer energy & Infrastructure Ltd. signed PPA for 20 MW s olar

power on 27.12.2013, which has provision that plant shall be commissioned

within 13 months from the date of signing of PPA i.e. 26.01.2015 .

2. UPNEDA initiated encashment of BG as measure of penal action against the 2. UPNEDA initiated encashment of BG as measure of penal action against the

petitioner for fail ing to meet time li ne envisaged in the PPA. However, the

petitioner obtained against invocation of

BG by UPNEDA .

3. It was submitted by the petitioner M/s Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd. that

it was earlier known as M/s Moser Baer energy & Infrastructure Ltd. and thus

holds full rights and liabilities of above PPA. Further, it was also submitted

that petitioner no. 2 M/s Hindustan Cleanenergy Ltd. was formerly known as

Moser Baer Clean Energy Ltd. and that it is the holding company of M/s

Spinel Energy & Infrastructure Ltd . The petitioner has submitted details

regarding change of its name issued by the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

Page 2 of 4

regarding change of its name issued by the Registrar of Companies (RoC).

4. In the last hearing the Commission directed the petitioner to submit up to

date details of financial investmen ts done in respect of land acquisition and

land acquired , with a copy of their submission to UPNEDA and UPPCL each .

For this purpose specific mutation of the land or registration of the land

Printed by BoltPDF (c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.

transferred in favour of petitioner only will be considered. UPNE DA and

UPPCL to give their comments on these submissions within 10 days of

receipt of submissions from the petitioner.

In response, the petitioner made submission dated 19.12.2015 that

they have completed acquisition of 100.37 acres of land in village Sup a,

tehasil Charkhari in District Mahoba . Regarding details of financial

investments a CA certified statement dated 08.12.2015 is furnished (as a investments a CA certified statement dated 08.12.2015 is furnished (as a

by the petitioner that

shows that Rs. 70.34 Lacs have be

5. Further, in response to written submissions made by UPNEDA during

hearing on 05.10.2015, the petitioner submit ted vide submission dated

09.12.2015 that it was due to various unforeseen reasons and circum stances

beyond their control as explained in the petition, the timeline provided in the

PPA could not be met.

They further submitted that they had achieved a conditional financial

closure on 02.09.2014 with Matrix for their site at village Bendo in Mahoba

District . The in -principle approval for grid connectivity was obtained on

26.08.2014 which was within 240 days timeline and later on 20.10.2014 the

connectivity agreement was executed. But since the land could not be

acquired for reasons beyond their cont rol the financial closure became

invalid.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached IREDA for financing the project

and IREDA agreed to fund the project subject to extension of SCOD. But

UPNEDA did not respond to their request for extension of SCOD.

Further, the petitioner identified new parcel of land and had executed

Page 3 of 4

Further, the petitioner identified new parcel of land and had executed

MoU for 106 acres of land also but UPNEDA refused to forward their request

for grid connectivity to UPPTCL.

6. On the submission made by UPPCL dated 03.10.2015 regarding amendment

for change of name in duly approved PPA for the petitioner to invoke

provisions of PPA, the petitioner submitted through submission dated

Printed by BoltPDF (c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.

09.12.2015 that they have no objection to executing an amended PPA,

however locus of the petitioner cannot be challenged pending amendm ent to

PPA which at most is mere formality that can be completed anytime

subsequent to name change. It was also brought on record that Corporate

Identity Number (CIN) of the petitioner remained same as prior to change of

name.

7. UPNEDA reasserted that petiti oner have not fulfilled any of their obligation 7. UPNEDA reasserted that petiti oner have not fulfilled any of their obligation

under PPA. UPNEDA also maintained that as per provisions of PPA

extension beyond 6 months cannot be granted for achieving commercial

operation and even that has elapsed on 26.07.2015.

8. In the hearing parties a cknowledged the fact that with advancement in solar

technology capital cost of solar projects is receding. It seems that one of the

reservations of UPNEDA is also on this account as higher cost of power is

eventually passed on to consumers. The Commission enquired from both the

parties how would they like to address this concern and relook into the price of

power . Both the parties agreed to revisit this issue and also revisit the modalities

of the agreement and then come up to the Commission with an agreed proposal.

One has to keep in mind the tariff benchmarked for similar projects coming up

hearing to both sides to discuss the matter and come to the Commission with an

agreed solution.

9. Further, the Commission directs the developer to submit its roadmap for

financial closure, land acquisi tion and connectivity agreement to vindicate its

appeal for time extension to complete the project.

10. The Commission adjourned the hearing.

11. The next date of hearing shall be fixed subsequent to submissions as above.

Page 4 of 4

11. The next date of hearing shall be fixed subsequent to submissions as above.

(S.K. Agarwal) (Indu Bhushan Pandey) (Desh Deepak Verma)

Member Member Chairman

Place: Lucknow Dated: 14.01.2016

Printed by BoltPDF (c) NCH Software. Free for non-commercial use only.