Reading Time: 2 minutes
Trinetra Wind and Hydra Power Pvt. Limited filed a petition before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) under Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003, seeking credit for wind energy injected into the grid during July and August 2021 or, alternatively, payment at ₹3.78/kWh. The company operates 101.2 MW of wind capacity in Rajkot, Gujarat, under the Wind Policy 2016, with 7.7 MW tied to Flometallics India Ltd. (FIL) under a 15-year PPA. A Medium-Term Open Access (MTOA) approval allowed power evacuation to FIL until June 30, 2021, after which Trinetra re-applied for extension. However, the approval was delayed due to a faulty ABT meter at FIL’s premises, which prevented issuance of the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL).
Trinetra claimed that despite FIL notifying DGVCL about the faulty meter in May 2021, the meter was only replaced on August 3, 2021, and during July and August 2021, 3,337,987 units and 2,207,869 units of wind energy, respectively, were injected into the grid. This energy was credited to DGVCL’s account by SLDC but not to FIL. Trinetra argued that the energy was consumed by DGVCL, which earned revenue, and hence should pay at the Wind Tariff Order 2016 rate. They cited past GERC orders and tribunal judgments supporting payment for such injected energy.
DGVCL countered that the injection without a valid MTOA approval was unauthorized and violated Open Access Regulations. They argued that the responsibility for installing and maintaining ABT meters lay with FIL, and Trinetra could not claim relief for periods without a valid wheeling agreement. They maintained that without open access approval, the power injection was wrongful and could not be commercially settled. They also said the delay in approval was due to the defective meter, which was FIL’s obligation to replace.
In rejoinder, Trinetra stressed that the delay was caused by DGVCL’s inaction in inspecting and replacing the faulty meter, contrary to GERC’s Standards of Performance Regulations, which mandate quicker action. They argued that timely replacement would have enabled MTOA renewal before expiry. They reiterated that the energy was used by DGVCL and that denying payment was unfair and against renewable energy promotion objectives.
The case revolves around whether DGVCL must credit or pay for the injected energy during the gap between MTOA approvals and whether the fault for the delay lies with the petitioner or the respondents. The Commission’s decision will hinge on interpreting contractual obligations, regulatory compliance, and past precedents for the deemed purchase of renewable energy.
