The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has rejected SJVN Green Energy’s petition seeking recognition of a different delivery point for electricity supplied from its 100 MW solar project at the Raghanesda Solar Park in Gujarat.

The Commission held that payment obligations under the power purchase agreement (PPA) with Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam (GUVNL) must be based on the energy certified in the state energy account issued by the Gujarat State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC).

It declined the developer’s request to treat Point D at the 220/400 kV Khimnawas Central Transmission Utility (CTU) substation as the delivery point for commercial settlement.

Background

The dispute relates to a 100 MW solar project developed by SJVN Green Energy in the 700 MW Raghanesda Solar Park in the Banaskantha district of Gujarat.

The project was awarded through a competitive bidding process initiated by GUVNL through a tender issued in March 2021. SJVN Green emerged as the successful bidder with a tariff of ₹2.64 (~$0.029)/kWh and subsequently entered into a power purchase agreement with GUVNL, along with a supplementary PPA.

The developer also signed an implementation and support agreement with Gujarat Power Corporation (GPCL), the solar park developer, and a tripartite connection agreement with Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO) and GPCL to establish connectivity for the project.

The project achieved commercial operation in phases, with 75 MW commissioned in April 2024 and the remaining 25 MW in September 2024.

SJVN Green argued that under the tender documents, the PPA, and other related agreements, the delivery point for scheduled energy should be considered the 220 kV side of the Khimnawas CTU substation. In the line diagram submitted to the Commission, this location was identified as Point D.

Based on this interpretation, the developer initially raised invoices using the scheduled energy reflected in the regional energy account issued by the Western Regional Power Committee.

However, Gujarat SLDC prepared the state energy account using downstream points in the state transmission network rather than the CTU bus as the delivery point. The petitioner said this resulted in a mismatch between the scheduled injection recorded at the CTU substation and the energy reflected in the state energy account after accounting for interstate transmission losses.

SJVN Green stated that the difference had resulted in a financial impact of about ₹12.4 million (~$134,494) up to December 2024. The company, therefore, sought directions from the Commission to declare Point D as the delivery point, revise the state energy accounts from April 2024 onward, and require GUVNL to make payments based on the revised accounts, along with carrying costs.

GUVNL and Gujarat SLDC opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner’s interpretation of the delivery point was inconsistent with the PPA and the supplementary PPA.

Commission’s findings

After examining the tender documents and contractual provisions, the Commission observed that the tender and the PPA clearly distinguish between the interconnection point, metering point, delivery point, and delivered energy.

It noted that the interconnection and metering points are defined as the low-voltage bus bar of the 220/400 kV CTU substation, where the project connects to the grid. However, the delivery point is defined as the interface between the CTU grid and the Gujarat STU grid at the GETCO periphery, where electricity is deemed to be delivered to GUVNL.

The Commission emphasized that these definitions serve different purposes. While energy may be measured at the CTU substation for operational and accounting purposes, the PPA provides that delivered energy for billing must be determined based on the state energy account issued by Gujarat SLDC.

CERC also observed that the implementation and support agreement between the developer and GPCL described the CTU substation as the delivery point. However, GUVNL was not a party to that agreement. The Commission therefore held that the definition contained in the implementation and support agreement could not override the delivery point defined in the PPA governing the transaction between the generator and the procurer.

The Commission further noted that the 33 kV to 220 kV pooling substation and the associated transmission lines up to the Khimnawas CTU substation form part of the internal evacuation system developed for the solar park. These facilities were created to evacuate power from the projects to the CTU grid and, therefore, cannot be treated as the delivery point for commercial settlement under the PPA.

Based on its analysis, the Commission concluded that the petitioner’s claim that Point D at the Khimnawas CTU substation should be treated as the delivery point was inconsistent with the contractual provisions.

It held that delivered energy under the PPA must be determined as the energy scheduled at the delivery point and certified by Gujarat SLDC in the state energy account.

Accordingly, the Commission rejected the request to declare Point D the delivery point and declined to direct any revision to the state energy accounts or the payment of the claimed differential amount.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.