CERC rejects CESC’s 300 MW hybrid power tariff bid over procedural lapses
Kolkata rejected a petition for the adoption of long-term purchase of 300 MW of 300 MW from grilled wind-sun hybrid projects by the Central Electrical Regulatory Commission (CERC), CERC), CERC LTD, and rejected the mismatch by giving opponent’s guidelines.
In his report, the Cerc report said that the electricity facility was not in advance for the deviations in the proposal process from the appropriate authority, which should be the center, not the Western Bengal government.
Cesc, La3.81 per kWh for hybrid power supply.
Cerc, “In accordance with the 63th part of the petition of the petition, we refuse to accept the tariff discovered in this way because it does not comply with the proposal guidelines. The petition owner may go to bend in accordance with the directives given in accordance with the 63th part of the decision.” He said.
Cesc swimed on November 8, 2024 because it supplies 150 MW Wind-Solar Hybrid power with an additional Greenhoe option, which aims to fulfill its renewable purchasing obligations. The project was suggested to be in Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.
The latest tariff was discovered with a competitive proposal and an e-Ers auction on December 27, 2024. Purvah Green Power PVT Ltd, a subsidiary of Cesc, appeared as a successful bid for the entire 300 MW capacity.
Cesc did not respond to the requests for comments until the filing time.
Although the Commission is aware of a previous case (petition no. 365/horse/2024), the approval of the deviations in the inter -provision transmission system (ISTS) that the inter -state transmission system should be taken from the central government and that Cesc continues with approval from the Western Bengal government.
The Commission also observed that Cesc mislead the project by explaining the ISTS nature of the project and that it was aware of the need to approach the center, although it is aware of the need to approach the center.
“The Commission condemned this requirement as an exception, but it cannot make the exception into a rule,” the order said.
“The adoption of the prayers of the petition in the instant petition will not be compatible with the principles in the 63th part of the 2003 Electrical Law,” he added.
Cesc advocated two main advantages in the winning proposal than average. First, the project promised a 50 percent higher capacity factor (CUF) for comparable hybrid projects.
In addition, the proposal owner is shorter than the standard 24 -month timeline, which is committed to completing the project within 20 months, which Cesc claims that it may result in potential savings. La0.02 per kWh.
The Commission also pointed out that the entire capacity of 300 MW was given to a relevant side.
“Another interesting point to note is that in response to the RFS in the 365/AT/2024 petition, the existing petition is exactly the same as the bidder holders participating in the bids and the winners are the same.
The Commission also rejected Cesc’s high tariff rationale on the grounds of higher capacity use and project timelines, and the company’s discovered tariff was placed incorrectly in the green day market (G-DAM) in short-term prices.
Cerc has announced that such comparisons are not valid under the instructions that require comparison against tariffs discovered by long -term competitive proposals.
The July 9 order advised CESC that it should definitely be reinstated in accordance with the instructions published in accordance with the 63rd part of the Electrical Law.
