panchabuta handbook book format 2013
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
1/44
PANCHABUTARENEWABLE ENERGY AND CLEANTECH IN INDIA
3 22Page 10Page Page
Wind REC Solar
Indian Renewable
Energy
Outlook on
2013
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
2/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
3/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
Dear Colleagues,
The Indian renewable sector today can be compared
to an animal that is crouching but is about to spring.
Things have not been good for wind in the recent
past, but there is good newsgeneration-based
incentive (GBI) is coming back. The fifty paise a
unit and t he increase in quantum of GBI to one
crore is a whiff of fresh air and could be the
turning point that the industr y is waiting for.
After all, accelerated depreciation has not been
ruled out. Since there is support within the govern-
ment, there is hope. Competitive bidding seems not
imminent, and the central regulator is likely to show
some leniency if the industry is able to show financial
injury due to scheduling and forecasting.
The wind industry is in a consolidation mode.
Non energy companies are exiting wind busi-
ness and the industry is getting more into the
hands of IPPs as we had predicted in our last
years edition.
Coming to solar, there is no news of the Phase
II of JNNSM, but one sees some action, in some
states, particularly in Tamil Nadu. If the Courts
uphold the states right to bring in the solar pur-
chase obligation, Tamil Nadu is sure to become
the preferred destination for solar in India. Even
without waiting for SPO, many industries are
putting up solar plants. It is practically a given
that other states will follow Tamil Nadu.
There is good news on the REC front. The reg-
ulators of Punjab, Delhi and Maharashtra havetold their discoms that they shall meet the RPO
targets this year.
The end of the tunnel is getting closer by the day.
Best Wishes,
Vineeth Vijayaraghavan
Founding Editor
Panchabuta
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WIND ENERGY ....................................................................... 3
Outlook on Indian Wind Sector .............................................................. 3
RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES ................... 10
Outlook on Indian REC Market .............................................................10
Interview with Vishal Pandya (REConnect Energy) .................. 14
GUJARAT SOLAR PV PLANTS - ANALYSIS OF
ONE YEAR PERFORMANCE DATA ........................... 15
SOLAR ENERGY ................................................................. 22
Outlook on Indian Solar Sector ........................................................... 22
Evaluating the performance of Solar PV plants in India using
Performance Ratio (PR) ......................................................................... 29
Interview with Pashupathy Gopalan (SunEdison) ...................... 32
Interview with Bikesh Ogra (Sterling & Wilson) ...........................34
Solar Showcase State - Tamil Nadu ..................................................... 38
This publication is a sole property of Panchabuta and its contents should not be reproduced without the prior consent of Panchabuta. Email us at [email protected]
for feedback, queries, features and advertising with Panchabuta.
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
4/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
5/44
Gamesa 15.3 230.3 312 89.5
Vestas 121.95 175.5 260 N.A
Others 259.7 334.23 259 83.65*
Total 1563.9 2320.28 3163 1700
* Including Vesta s
Potential
The total potential for wind power in India
was first est imated by the Centre for Wind
Energy Technology (C-WET) at 45 GW, and
was recently increased to 48.5 GW. This
figure was also adopted by the Govern-
ment as the official estimate.
At heights of 55 - 65 metres, the
Indian Wind Turbine Manufacturers
Association (IWTMA) estimates that the
potential for wind development in India
is around 65 - 70 GW. According to the
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
(MNRE), it is estimated that by 2030, in-
sta lled capacity could reach 191 GW.
In the future, a considerable portion of
the capacity addition is also expected
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
OUTLOOK ON INDIAN WIND SECTORIndias renewable energy sector is dominated by the wind segment. As of 31st March 2013, India had a renew-
able energy installed capacity of 28 GW out of which 68% or 19.05 GW was contributed by the wind segment.
In the overall energy mix of 223 GW, winds contribution is 8.5%.
The dominance of wind energy in the overall Indian renewable energy mix is obvious and a number of factors
have contributed to the same. Indias foray into wind energy began in the early 1990s and has shown remark-
able growth over the past two decades to become the largest contributor of renewable power generation in thecountry.
The tremendous growth witnessed in the wind energy sector is seen in the results achieved so far India cur-
rently ranks 5th in the globa l list of top countries in terms of installed wind energy generation capacity.
After four years of continuous high
growth, Indias wind sector saw instal-
lations reduce to half from the previous
year. From a peak of about 3 GW annual
capacity additions in 2011-12, the annual
addition was only 1.7 GW in 2012-13. The
major factor that contributed to the drop ininstallations was the withdrawal of the Ac-
celerated Depreciation (AD) benefit. The
ambiguity over the Generation Based Incen-
tive (GBI) also added to the challenges.
Not surprisingly, Indias ranking in the
Ernst & Young (E&Y) report for the w ind
sector dropped from three to six in the
Annual Renewable Energy Country At-
tractiveness Index released in May 2013.
Market share of wind
turbine m anufacturers
The year 2013-14 saw some major changes in
the market share of wind turbine manu-
facturers. Suzlon and Gamesa lost sig-
nificant market share in the year 2012-
13 over the previous year. Enercon and
ReGen Powertech improved their market
shares marginal ly in 2012-13 compared to
previous year.
Manu-
facturer
Installed Capacity in MW year-wise
2009-
10
2010-
11
2011-
12
2012-
13
Ener-
con
348.8 504 767 453.6
Suzlon 762.65 954.6 1149 414.75
ReGen
Pow-
ertech
55.5 55.5 416 273
Inox N.A N.A N.A 264
GE
Wind
N.A N.A N.A 121.5
Source: Indian Wind Energy Association, MNRE
to come from repowering of existing
wind farms. This is due to the fact that
most high wind energy density sites are
already exploited and are occupied (in
most ca ses) by older, low capacity windturbines. Upgrading these wind farms
with latest design as well as promoting
the use of more efficient turbines would
result in the wind farms seeing higher
PLF, thereby aiding in the realization of
higher revenue.
Off-shore Wind Segment in India
In addition to the on-shore and repow-
ering segments, significant potential ex-
ists in the off-shore wind energy sector.According to the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE), India is es-
timated to have 350 GW of off-shore
wind energy capacity. Recognizing the
importance of off-shore wind energy,
MNRE released a draft National Off-
shore Wind Policy in May 2013. The
policy draft says that there is a potential
of 1 GW, each along the Rameshwaram
and Kanyakumari coas ts in Tamil Nadu.
The policy aims to facilitate off-shore
3
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
6/44
Policy Framework
Feed-in-Tariff
The wind energy capacity additions hasbeen driven primarily through a feed-in-
tariff (FiT) mechanism. The FiT for each
state is determined by its respective
State Electricity Regulatory Commission
(SERC). The various SERCs thus far have
adopted a cost-plus approach wherein,
the costs associated with setting up a
wind power plant such as capital ex-
penses and operational expenses are
considered based on discussions with
various stakeholders. The FiT is then cal-
culated based on the levelized cost anda fixed profit margin determined by the
regulators.
One other important aspect consid-
ered while setting the wind energy tariff is
the capacity utilization factor (CUF). CUF
is a function of the site at which the wind
turbine is located and as such various re-
gions across a state might have different
wind profiles thereby affecting the elec-
tricity generated and hence revenues. This
has led to some states such as Maharash-
tra opting for a tariff scheme which is tied
to the prevailing wind regime across the
various parts of the state leading to what
is known as a zone based tariff. In this
mechanism, the projects in regions with
the lowest wind energy density are offered
a higher tariff while the highest wind en-
ergy density region is given a lower tariff.
This ensures that the returns from all proj-
ects remain the same and the variance due
to wind energy regimes is minimized to a
very large extent.
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
wind farms upto 12 nautical miles f rom
the coast. The policy offers several fisca l
incentives in the form of a 10 year tax
holiday, concessional import duties and
certain duty waivers.
In August 2013, it was announced that a
National Offshore Wind Energy Authori-
ty (NOWA) under the aegis of the MNREwould be constituted, that will act as the
nodal agency for Off-shore Wind Proj-
ects in the country. NOWA will carry out
resource assessment and surveys in the
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the
country and simultaneously enter into
contracts with project developers for
development of off-shore wind energy
projects in the territorial waters (12 nm).
NOWA will be the single window agency
and will coordinate with concerned Min-
istries/Departments for necessary clear-ances. However, NOWA will only act as
a facilitator for getting clearance and ap-
plication for clearance will be dealt in en-
tirety by the concerned Ministry/Depart-
ment.In
Installed Capacity
The geographic dist ribution of wind en-
ergy generation capacity is diverse. It can
be argued that the geographic distribu-
tion of wind power in the country fol-lows the available wind energy potential
in the states. For instance, some of the
regions with the highest wind energy
density (Class 1/Class 2) sites can be
found in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Rajasthan,
Maharashtra and Karnataka. Of these
states, almost all available high wind
energy sites have been utilized in Tamil
Nadu. The state where there is a signifi-
cant divide between the available poten-
tial and installed capacity is Karnataka.
Tamil Nadu is the clear leader when it
comes to the total wind capacity in-
stalled in India accounting for about
38% of the overall installed wind ener-
gy capacity as of 31st March 2013. Tamil
Nadu is followed by Gujarat, Maharash-
tra and Rajasthan three states which
have taken significant effort in bolster-
ing their wind capacity.
The top 5 states (Tamil Nadu, Gujarat,
Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Karnataka)
constitute 95% of the total capacity in-stalled in the country.
Maharashtra is slowly gaining ground
on Tamil Nadu as most developers ob-
serve that the states wind zone-based
tariff system is conducive for financial-
ly viable development of power plants.
Furthermore, with payment security
sighted as one of the major concerns in
Tamil Nadu, developers are moving away
from the once home of wind energy to
new pastures. However, Tamil Nadu hascleared most of the pending payments,
and is once again gaining the confidence
of investors.
Capacity additions were down by a sig-
nificant percentage this financial year in
some of the leading states such as Tamil
Nadu, Gujarat and Maharashtra. But
states such as Rajasthan and Karnataka
have either seen an increase or stable ca-
pacity additions.
Source: MNRE as of 31st March 2013
% of Total Installed Capacity
Tamil Nadu Gujarat Maharashtra
Rajasthan Karnataka Madhya Pradesh
Andhra Pradesh Kerala Others
The year-wise capacity additions since 2006-07 (in MW)
State2006-07(Cumulative)
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13
Tamil Nadu 3,492.7 3,873.4 4,304.5 4,907.0 5,904.4 6,987.6 7,162.18
Gujarat 636.6 1,252.9 1,566.5 1,864.0 2,175.5 2,966.3 3,174.58
Maharashtra 1,487.7 1,755.9 1,938.9 2,078.0 2,310.8 2,733.3 3,021.85
Rajasthan 469.8 538.8 738.4 1,088.0 1,524.8 2,070.7 2,684.65
Karnataka 821.1 1,011.4 1,327.4 1,473.0 1,730.0 1,933.5 2,135.15
Madhya Pradesh 57.3 187.7 212.8 229.0 275.5 376.4 386.00
Andhra Pradesh 122.5 122.5 122.5 236.0 200.2 245.5 447.65
Kerala 2.0 10.5 27.0 28.0 32.8 35.1 35.10
Others 1.1 1.1 1.1 4.0 - 3.2 4.30
Total (MW) 7,090.8 8,754.2 10,239.1 11,907 14,154 17,351.6 19,051.46
4
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
7/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
8/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
6
State Tariff
rates per
KWh
Annual
tariff
escalation
Notes
AndhraPradesh
Rs. 4.70 Constant for10 years forthe PPAs tobe signedduring01-05-09 to31-03-14
Order
on
15/11/12
Gujarat Rs. 4.15 No escala-
tion for 25
years of
project life
Order
on
07/01/13
Karna-taka
Rs. 3.70 No esca la-
tion for 10
years
Kerala Rs. 4.77 No escala-
tion for 20
years of
project life
Madhya
Pradesh
Rs. 5.92 No esca la-
tion for 25years of
project life
Order
on26/03/13
Maha-rashtra
Wind
Zone I -
Rs. 4.86
No escala-
tion for 13
years
Net
tariff
includ-
ing AD
benefitWind
Zone II -
RS. 4.23
Wind
Zone III -
Rs. 3.60
WindZone IV -
Rs. 3.24
Maha-rashtra
Wind
Zone I -
Rs. 5.67
No escala-
tion for 13
years
TariffwithoutADbenefits
Wind
Zone II -
Rs. 4.93
Wind
Zone III -
Rs. 4.20
Wind
Zone IV -
Rs. 3.78
Orissa Rs. 5.31 No escala-
tion for 13
years
Punjab Rs. 5.96
(without
AD)
WindZone I
Rs. 5.36
(with
AD)
Rajast-
han
Rs. 5.18
(without
AD)
Rs. 4.89
(with
AD)
No escala-
tion for 25
years. Ap-
plicable to
wind Power
Plants
located in
Jaisalmer,
Jodhpur
& Barmerdistricts
Rs. 5.44
(without
AD)
Rs. 5.13
(with
AD)
No escala-
tion for 25
years. Ap-
plicable to
wind Power
Plants
located in
districts
other than
Jaisalmer,
Jodhpur
& Barmer
districts.
TamilNadu
Rs. 3.51 No esca la-
tion for 20
years of
project life
WestBengal
Rs. 4.87 No esca la-
tion for 10
years
2013
Accelerated Depreciation
Wind capacity additions reached their
zenith under the Accelerated Deprecia-
tion (AD) regime where wind farm de-
velopers were offered fiscal incentives
(tax benefits). The incentive offered, al-
lowed for wind farm developers to opt
for 80% AD on their assets. This led to
a tremendous growth in wind capacity
additions. The AD benefit can be cred-
ited for single-handedly driving I ndia to
the top of the leader boards in the wind
sector.
Earlier it was suggested that the AD ben-
efit for setting up wind farms would bewithdrawn with the introduction of the
new direct tax code. However, the AD
benefits enjoyed by developers thus far
were withdrawn from the financial year
2012-13 i.e. from 1st April 2012 onwards.
The impact of the removal of AD is ev-
ident as seen from the drastic drop in
installations in every major state, except
Rajasthan.
State 2011-12 2012-13 Change
Year
-over-
Year
Tamil Nadu 1,083.20 174.58 -84%
Gujarat 790.80 208.28 -74%
Maharash-tra
422.50 288.55 --32%
Rajasthan 545.90 613.95 12%
Karnataka 203.50 201.65 -1%
MadhyaPradesh
100.90 9.60 -90%
AndhraPradesh
45.30 202.15 346%
Kerala 2.30 - -100%
Others 3.20 1.10 -66%
Total
(MW)
3,197.60 1,699.86 -47%
(Source: MNRE)
Generation Based Incentive
The Generation Based Incentive (GBI)
scheme was introduced in 2009. The
reason behind the introduction of the
GBI mechanism was to persuade de-
velopers to install wind capacity which
would focus on the quantum of electric-
ity generated rather than mere installa-
tion of wind turbines to gain the acceler-
ated depreciation benefit i.e. using wind
as a financial instrument as opposed to
a power source. Thus, the GBI mecha-nism favoured developers whose wind
farms were more efficient. Furthermore,
the introduction of the GBI was one
of the first steps which indicated that
there would be a shift in market dynam-
ics towards a more IPP driven model as
the GBI model favoured IPPs who were
likely to have higher installed capacities
thereby producing a larger quantum of
electricity.
The scheme offered a GBI of Rs. 0.50 perkWh with a predefined cap of Rs. 62.5
lakhs per MW of the capacity installed.
The GBI offered is over and above the
tariff offered by each SERC. This howev-
er is exclusive of the AD benefit that the
wind farm developer would get. Thus,
the developer has to make a choice as to
whether to go for the AD benef it or avail
the GBI. The GBI incentive scheme was
available till the end of the financial year
2011-12, i.e. all projects commissioned
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
9/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
7
before 31st March 2012 were eligible for
GBI provided the developer chose to go
through this route.
The expir y of the GBI in March 2012 and
the consequent non-availability of the
incentive also contributed to the huge
slump in the sector in 2012-13. The Gov-
ernment of India, acknowledging theimportance of the GBI in the growth of
the sector, especially after the phasing
out of AD benefits, reinstated the GBI
from 1st April 2013 and allocated Rs. 800
Crore towards the same. On 1st August
2013, the Union Cabinet of Ministers for-
mally approved the reinstatement of the
scheme.
The incentive of 50 paise per kWh of
electricity generated by wind projects
registered under the scheme will contin-
ue. The cap of Rs. 62 lakhs per MW has
been increased to Rs. 1 Crore per MW,
which can be drawn in not fewer than 4
years and not more than 10.
Renewable PurchaseObligations (RPO)
In the absence of the AD benefits and
GBI, the wind industr ys reliance on the
RPO regulations have increased mani-
fold. However, due to t he lack of enforce-
ment of RPO in many states, the demand
for wind power and for the Renewable
Energy Certificates (REC) has not tak-
en off as planned. The prices at which
RECs have been traded are at the floor
for some time, and the number of un-
sold RECs has been increasing. In order
to provide relief to the renewable energy
power producers whose RECs were in
the process of expiring due to lack of de-
mand, the Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission (CERC) extended the valid-
ity of the RECs by 12 months meaning
that the RECs are now valid for a period
of two years as opposed to the init ial pe-
riod of one year.
The status of RPO and REC trading are
explained in detail in a separate section.
Paradigm Shift
There is no doubt that the market until
a couple of years ago has been driven
by the existence of the AD mechanism.
With AD being phased out, wind power
developers can no longer use installa-
tion of WTGs as a financial instrument.
Furthermore, the most f inancially viable
wind projects are those under the REC
mechanism which favour a higher quan-
tum of energy generation. Such projects
typically have capacity additions of alarger scale (on a per project basis). In
this scenario, capacity additions are like-
ly to be driven by large scale IPPs as op-
posed to several small scale developers.
The updates from some of the leading
developers are given below.
Month Devel-
oper
Ca-
pacity
(MW)
Esti-
mated
Project
Cost
(Rs.Crore
Project
Status
August
'13
ITC Not
Avail-
able
300 An-
nounced
July'13 Reli-
ance
Power
45 300 Com-
mis-
sioned
July'13 GAIL 100 Not
Avail-
able
An-
nounced
July'13 Gre-enco
250 Not
Avail-able
An-
nounced
July'13 Jawa-
harlal
Nehru
Port
Trust
(JNPT)
7 50 An-
nounced
July'13 Surat
Mu-
nicipal
Corpo-
ration
(SMC)
6.3 Not
Avail-
able
An-
nounced
June'13 Nalco 47.6 283 Com-
mis-
sioned
June'13 SJVNL 47.6 Not
Avail-
able
An-
nounced
May'13 NLC 50 Not
Avail-
able
An-
nounced
May'13 CESC 40 Not
Avail-
able
Com-
mis-
sioned
May'13 Mytrah 100 Not
Avail-
able
An-
nounced
May'13 Tata
Power
21 Not
Avail-
able
Com-
mis-
sioned
April'13 Oil
India
limited
54 Not
Avail-
able
Com-
mis-
sioned
Decem-
ber'12
Nalco 50.4 274 Com-
mis-
sioned
Novem-
ber'12
Bho-rukaPowerCorpo-ration
25.5 180 Com-
mis-
sioned
The shift towards an IPP driven market
has also had an impact on the business
models of the turbine manufacturers.
Initially, all turbine manufacturers in
the country offered to undertake EPC
services for wind power plants, in addi-
tion to providing turbines, as customers
expected the turbine manufacturers to
install the turbines and connect it to the
grid. This is in stark contrast with what is
witnessed in the Western markets where
the turbine manufacturers merely pro-
vide the turbine and support services.
With the emergence of large scale wind
IPPs in the country, the turbine manu-
facturers might no longer need to pro-
vide the EPC services. IPPs, as opposed
to small scale developers, are building
in-house expertise for developing as well
as installing wind turbines. Further, IPPs
would prefer to keep all sourcing/instal-
lation tasks under their control as this
would help them cut cost s significantly.
In the future, we are likely to see a tran-
sition to the Western model wherein the
turbine manufacturers merely provide
the turbines and assist in the mainte-
nance of the power plants. The initial
phases of such a transition are already
evident as the model is evolving.
Consolidation
The wind sector has already set in mo-
tion the inevitable consolidation, which
has resulted in two categories of entities.
On one side, there are several business
entities that are exiting the wind busi-
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
10/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
ness. Some of the major companies in
this category include TVS Energy, Ashok
Leyland, DLF, among others. On the oth-
er side, there are IPPs like Green Infra,
BLP and Mytrah Energy that are growing
or looking to grow through green field
projects and through acquisitions of ex-
isting wind assets.
In August 2013, IDFC backed Green In-
fra announced the acquisition of 59.75
MW wind assets of TVS Energy. With
this sale, TVS Energy exited the sector
citing the high capital intensity of the
sector. Similarly, DLF sold off a total of
228.7 MW in 4 different states to differ-
ent buyers. The details are as follows
a. Karnataka 11.2 MW sold to Goyal
MG Gases for Rs. 30 Crore
b. Gujarat 150 MW sold to BharatLight and Power for Rs. 325 Crore
c. Tamil Nadu 34.5 MW sold to Tulip
Renewable Power Tech for Rs. 188.7
Crore
d. Rajast han 33 MW sold to Violet
Green Power for Rs. 52.2 Crore
e. Wind assets of VRL Logistics total-
ling 42.5 MW were purchased by
Amplus Infrastructure
f. Madhya Pradesh - 180 MW sold to
Continuum Wind Energy for an un-
disclosed value
Apart from these, Mytrah Energy and
Ushdev International have announced
intentions to procure operational wind
assets.
Way Forward
EvacuationThe increased capacity addition ofwind in the country is unfortunatelynot matched by an equivalent additionof power evacuation infrastructure. Thelack of grid availability during the peakwind seasons is a major problem for thewind power producers, mostly in TamilNadu, where technical challenges result ingrid congestion. According to the leadingIPP Orient Green Power Ltd. (OGPL), thegeneration of wind power dropped by 15%or more for most companies in November2012 due to the lack of grid availability.
The fact that the Southern Grid, of whichTamil Nadu is part of, is not synchronisedwith the rest of the grids compounds the
problem.
According to the Indian Wind Turbine
Manufacturers Association (IWTMA),
during the peak wind season from May
to September 2013, about 500 MW ca-
pacities would be forced to shut downin the Tirunelveli region of Tamil Nadu.
Green Corridor
The Government of India, acknowledg-
ing the importance of evacua tion infra-
str ucture for renewables, has announced
the setting up of Green Energy Corridors
for transmission of power. The aim is
to supply 30 GW of renewable power
(solar and wind) to the national grid by
2020. Germany has announced that it
will provide financial assistance of EuroOne Billion for this project and the Joint
Declaration of Intent on Establishment
of Green Energy Corridors was signed by
the Prime Minister of India and Chancel-
lor of Germany in April 2013.
Forecasting Wind Power Gen-eration
In July 2013, the Central Electr icity Reg-
ulatory Commission (CERC) issued an
order to all wind power generators with
a capacity of 10 MW or more to forecast
their generation for the next day, for ev-
ery 15 minute interval. The scheduling
and forecasting order was conceptu-
alised in order to make the grid opera-
tions better and reduce instability that
may arise out of the fluctuation of power
from wind turbines to the grid. If the
actual generation is 30 per cent more or
less over the submitted forecast, penal-
ties would be imposed. The order is ap-
plicable for all wind turbines installed
after May 2010.
Wind power producers like Tata Power
have mentioned that this ruling will se-
verely affect the profitability of the wind
farms. On the other side, CERC has men-
tioned that the order was released after a
two year delay following objections from
the wind power producers.
The Wind Independent Power Produc-
ers Association (WIPPA) filed a petition
with the Delhi High Court over the CERC
scheduling and forecasting order.
Conclusion
The shift from a turbine manufacturer
driven-market to an Independent Power
Producer (IPP) driven-market accelerated
over the past year. The reinstatement of
the GBI mechanism not only provides
relief to the industry, but also stands to
benefit the IPP more than from AD. TheRPO/REC mechanism seems to be holding
the wind industr y up at the moment. As to
whether the industry can depend solely on
this mechanism remains to be seen.
It should be noted that in signif icant con-
trast with the solar industry, the wind
industry is heavily indigenized. It is es-
timated that anywhere between 40%
to 75% of all components used for the
development of a wind turbine/farm are
manufactured within the country. The
success of the wind industr y would thenhave a direct impact on the economy as
the sector has created many jobs along
with fostering the growth of various
other associated businesses. The sector
would continue to do so depending on
the growth of the wind market in India.
The wind indust ry is now grappling with
some old challenges that are becoming
bigger and some new challenges. The in-
creasing power evacuation problem falls
in the former category and the need for
scheduling and forecasting falls in thelatter. While forecasting is very impor-
tant for the industry, a higher level of
accurate forecasting might take some
more time.
Overall, the wind industry is at cross-
roads. The restoration of the GBI is a
boon but it is likely to take a few years
for the industry to touch the peak capac-
ity ins tal lation in 2011-12. The lacklustre
RPO enforcement is also hurting the
growth of the sector. The consolidation
caused by the downturn in the sectorwill continue, with many firms exiting
the wind business and some entering
due to attractive valuations.
8
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
11/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
12/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
OUTLOOK ON INDIAN REC MARKET
Financial year 2012-13 (April 2012 - March 2013) was a lacklustre year for the Renewable Purchase Obligation
(RPO) mechanism and for the REC markets. With no enforcement of the RPO in sight by most states, the
demand for RECs was quite limited. On the other hand, the number of projects registered under the REC mech-
anism and the number of RECs issued (supply of RECs) has been increasing at a fast pace, mainly Non-Solar
RECs. For Solar RECs, the demand was more than the supply till April 2013. But, the situation has reversed
from May 2013.
Since the number of RECs were far in excess of the demand, many of the RECs were in danger of expiry. The
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) stepped in to help the REC generators and
extended the validity of RECs from one year to two years in February 2013.
Background
Renewable PurchaseObligation
As per the Electricity Act of 2003, it ismandatory for Obligated Entities (OEs)to buy a certain percentage of the to-tal energy requirement from renewableenergy sources. The RPO targets are setfor each state and it is the responsibilityof the State Electricity Regulatory Com-mission (SERC) to enforce the targets.The targets for 2013-14 for each state are
given below.
States 2013-14
RPO
Obligation
(Non-Solar)
2013-14 RPO
Obligation
(Solar)
Andhra
Pradesh
4.75 % 0.25 %
Assam 5.40 % 0.20 %
Arunachal
Pradesh
5.45 % 0.15 %
Bihar 3.50 % 1.00 %
Chhattis-
garh
5.75 % 0.50 %
Delhi 4.60 % 0.20 %
Gujarat 6.00 %** 1.00 %**
Haryana 2.90 % 0.10 %
Himachal
Pradesh
10.00 % 0.25 %
J&K 4.75 % 0.25 %
Jharkhand 3.00 % 1.00 %
Karnataka 10.00 % * 0.25 % *
Kerala 3.65 % 0.25 %
Madhya
Pradesh
4.70 % 0.80 %
Maharash-
tra8.50 % 0.50 %
Meghalaya 0.60 % 0.40 %
Orissa 5.80 % 0.20 %
Punjab 3.37 % 0.13 %
Rajasthan 7.20 % 1.00 %
Tamil Nadu 8.95 %** 0.05 %**
Tripura 0.90 % 0.10 %
Uttara-
khand
5.00 %** 0.05 %**
Uttar
Pradesh5.00 %** 1.00 %**
West
Bengal
3.90% 0.10 %
Goa & UTs 2.60 % 0.40 %
Manipur 4.75 % 0.25 %
Mizoram 6.75 % 0.25 %
Nagaland 7.75 % 0.25 %
** RPO targets are not determined for FY14 and areassumed to continue FY13 target levels.* 10% + 0.25% (BESCOM, MESCOM, CESC), 7% +0.25% for others.
(Source: REConnect as of July 2013)
Renewable Energy Certificate(REC) Mechanism
REC mechanism is a way by which theobligated entities under RPO can meettheir targets. The Renewable Energy gen-erators are issued one Renewable EnergyCertificate (REC) for every 1 MWh ofpower generated. The certificates canthen be sold in the exchanges to the ob-ligated entities.
The REC trading mechanism was launchedin November 2010 and got off to a goodstart. The RECs were classified into twocategories Solar and Non-Solar RECs,and the trading takes place on the lastWednesday of every month. The tradingis done in the power exchanges - IndianEnergy Exchange (IEX) and PowerExchange India (PXIL). The price band forthe RECs as set by the CERC is given be-
low. This price band is valid till March 2017.
Non-Solar
REC
Solar REC
Floor Price
(Rs./REC)
1,500 9,300
Forbear-ance Price
(Rs./REC)
3,300 13,400
The table below gives the details of theprojects accredited and registered underthe REC Mechanism for different renew-able energy sources.
Source Accreditation Registration
Capacity
(MW)
Unit Capacity
(MW)
Unit
Wind 2253.18 566 2038.29 534
Urban orMuncipalWaste
16 2 0 0
Solar
Thermal
3 1 0 0
Solar PV 171.68 83 162.68 78
Small
Hydro
218 25 197.5 23
Others 1.67 1 1.67 1
Geother-
mal
0 0 0 0
Biomass 639.9 65 582.85 60
Bio-fuel
cogenera-
tion
777.87 79 669.3 70
Total 4081.29 822 3652.28 766
(Source: REC Registry of India, as of 23rd August 2013)
The statewise projects accredited underthe REC mechanism as of 23rd August2013 are given below.
The trading dynamics of solar and non-
solar RECs are quite different owing to
10
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
13/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
the demand and supply differences and
the price of RECs.
Statewise Accredited Status (Number of
Units & Capacity) 23-08-2013
S.No. Type/ State Total
Unit Capacity
(MW)
1 Tamil Nadu 210 986.56
2 Maharashtra 336 918.8
3 Uttar Pradesh 53 678.13
4 Gujarat 52 418.6
5 Karnataka 29 234.79
6 Rajasthan 46 224
7 Andhra Pradesh 15 130.55
8 Madhya Pradesh 41 110.4
9 Chhattisgarh 9 88.5
10 Punjab 4 66.78
11 Himachal Pradesh 6 47.5
12 Odisha 4 33.9
13 Bihar 5 26.6
14 Nagaland 1 24
15 Uttarakhand 1 24
16 Kerala 2 23.2
17 Jammu and Kash-
mir (JKSPDCL)
2 17.5
18 Delhi 2 16
19 Haryana 4 11.5
Total 822 4081.31
(Source: REC Registr y of India)
Non-Solar REC trading
One of the major challenges for non-
solar renewable power generators is the
ever increasing gap between demand
and supply. Till July 2012, the supply and
demand were fairly balanced, but sincethen the number of RECs generated (sup-
ply) has been growing at a rapid pace.
However, the demand has either fallen
or stagnated during the same period.
For example, the difference between sell
bids (supply) and buy bids (demand) in
July 2012 was 306,514. But one year later,
in July 2013, the difference between sell
bids and buy bids increased by about
8.5 times to 2,610,796. The graph below
clearly indicates this trend.
The reason for the low demand can be directly attributed to the lack of RPO
enforcement by most of the states.
Non-Solar REC Traded Volumes
The number of non-solar RECs traded from April 2012 to July 2013 is given below.The traded volume as a whole has remained fairly constant, despite the increase in
the number of RECs available for sale. The only exception was March 2013, when the
REC sales touched an all-time peak. This can be attributed to the fact that March is
the end of the f inancial year and many companies bought RECs to meet with their
RPO compliance.
However, this spike in March is an anomaly and the next month, April 2013, saw the
number of RECs sold crashing.
Non-Solar REC Price Realisation
Since supply of RECs outstripped their demand significantly, the price of RECs
11
Buy B ids vs Sell Bids (Non-Solar RECs)
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
14/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
touched the floor price and has remained there for the last 12 months. This situation
is unlikely to change in the near future.
Solar REC Trading
Unlike non-solar RECs, the supply of solar RECs was less than the demand till April
2013. But from May 2013, the trend appears to have reversed. With more and more
solar projects coming up under the REC mechanism, the supply of solar RECs is
expected to see a dramatic increase as witnessed in the non-solar REC segment.
If the RPO is not enforced properly, solar REC trading will face a situation similar to
that faced by non-solar RECs.
Solar REC Traded Volumes
The traded volume of solar RECs has followed a path similar to that of non-solar
since there was not enough supply of
RECs. But once that situation reversed,
the price of solar RECs started to fall.
After hitting a high (Rs. 13,200/REC)
in March 2013, the price of solar RECs
dramatically dropped to the floor price
(Rs. 9,300/REC) within 3 trading ses-
sions by June 2013. For the last three
months (June to August 2013), the pricehas remained at the floor price and it is
unlikely to increase any further unless
demand for RECs is stimulated by the
enforcement of RPO at the st ate-level.
Conclusion
The RECs (non-solar and solar) have
been trading at the floor price over the
last few trading sessions on increasing
supply leading to a huge supply side fa-
tigue. The key challenge remains the lack
of regulatory will to enforce the obliga-
tions. With an ever increasing demand-
supply spread, the market requires short
term and long term interventions to
boost the confidence of participants on
the supply side. The spot market trad-
ing of the REC has not provided enough
market liquidity and stakeholders have
recommended that bilateral and multi-
lateral trading be permitted. A critical
reassessment and repricing of solar REC
must be done at the earliest. As regu-
lators enforce compliance and steps are
taken to deepen the market mechanism,
the REC market should witness renewed
interest.
RECs. The number of RECs sold touched an all-time high in March 2013, but dropped
again in the subsequent months.
Solar REC Price Realisation
Solar REC prices stayed close to the upper limit (forbearance price) till May 2013
12
Demand Vs Supply (Solar RECs)
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
15/44
*FY 2012 - 13
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
16/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
INDIAN REC MARKET: LOOKING BACK AND
LOOKING FORWARD
REConnect is as old as the REC market in
India. How has your experience been so far?
We were the first company in the mar-ket to trade both solar and non-solar
RECs. The changed market dynamics
explosive growth in REC supply and
lack of regulatory will to drive demand
has moved REC sellers from the posi-
tion of priv ilege to peril. Non-solar RECs
are trading at floor price for 12 consecu-
tive months, and now solar RECs are
also joining the beleaguered league.
Every stakeholder including REConnect
on the supply side of REC has been under
a lot of stress and fatigue. As a stake-holder, I think we and our clients are just
completing a cycle of REC market evo-
lution.
Do you foresee any reprieve for the
troubled REC Market?
Without any prejudice to our existing
stake in the REC market, we firmly be-
lieve that it would still be premature to
write-off REC market completely as the
market is yet to see its best. In our un-
derstanding, FY 2013-14 would be the
first year where we would see as many
as 5-6 state DISCOMs meeting their RPO
compliance. Delhi, Maharashtra, Pun-
jab, Karnataka and Chhatt isgarh state
regulators have already summoned state
DISCOMs and captive/open access con-
sumers to meet their past RPOs includ-
ing current year RPO by this FY. Even
if these five states only are to comply
with their past and current RPO by FY14,
we are looking at a demand of about 38
Lakh non-solar RECs and 4 Lakh solar
RECs. This demand alone will be sub-
stantial enough to give a big relief to the
REC market.
What are the key issues that need to be
addressed to sustain the REC market?
The larger issue is regulatory will, which
is largely driven by political motives.
Apart from this, there are other softer is-
sues which have made a few regulators
jitter y about the REC mechanism. For
example, in non-solar, REC represents
three types of asset classes projects
which will need REC revenue for theirabsolute viability, projects that need
RECs for increased ROI and projects
needing RECs for windfall gains. Some
rationalist regulators would naturally ob-
ject agains t creat ion of windfall gains at
the cost of the consumer. This lack of depth
in the framework has created negative senti-
ments among few regulators.
What are the key changes that stakehold-
ers are expecting from the regulators?
The framework needs significant chang-es for its own sustainability. For exam-
ple, different treatment of different asset
classes call for differential REC prices
or differential REC multipliers to ensure
every project under REC mechanism
has been provided a level playing field.
The framework shall not create scope
for windfall gains. This is absolutely
essential for increasing stakeholders
confidence. Likewise, the liquidity issue
needs to be sorted out. The current spot
Vishal Pandya is co-founder of REConnect Energy Indias largest REC
Trading company. Today, REConnect manages about 46% market
share in Non - Solar RECs and about 80% market share in Solar REC
trading. Further, REConnect has also gained significant market share
in wind/solar forecasting/scheduling as required under RRF mech-
anism and is managing such requirements of wind farms across 5
states in India.
market based trading is not sufficient as
it has failed miserably to attract liquidity.
If only spot market needs to function,
then we must have a multilateral market.
Otherwise, bilateral trades of RECs must
be introduced along with multilateral
trades to ensure better debt structuring
and project financing.
Do you think failure of RECs will affect
Indias growth story in renewables?
Whether RECs remain or not, we as a
country have a huge RE potential to
tap. Today, corporates have become
more cost conscious when it comes toenergy. With the kind of energy tariffs
currently prevailing in the country, in
many consumer types, renewable energy
is cheaper than the price being offered
by distribution companies. Hence, even
without RECs, we have a very long term
future in renewable sector. However, the
key motive behind REC mechanism was
to trigger high growth in capacity addi-
tion which could have driven down the
cost of renewable further. However, the
shortsightedness of containing the im-
pact on tariff for near-term is failing the
long-term objective of securing low cost
future energy supply. Given the current
circumstances, we are not far away from
seeing every Indian corporate adopting
a complete energy portfolio manage-
ment approach like optimally mixing up
energy supply from renewable, energy
exchanges and f rom dist ribution compa-
nies to gain better energy cost economics.
We have already got a few clients who have
started working in this direction.
14
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
17/44
Gujarat Solar PV Plants
Analysis of one year performance data
In this white paper, a total of 50 plants totalling 665.64 MW have been ranked based on their annual yield (MWh/MW). All these plants have been operational for at least 1
year. Of these 50 plants, 15 plants are located in Charanka Solar Park and 35 plants outside Charanka. There is an overall ranking of the 50 plants and a separate ranking
each, for plants in Charanka and outside Charanka.The module, inverters, tilt mechanism and EPC details are also available for several plants. But we would like to point out that knowing the module, inverter and EPCdetails is still not enough to benchmark the plants, because there are other variables that inuence the performance of the plant. Some of them include quality of balanceof system components (cables, connectors, etc) and build quality.
Gujarat signed Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) towards a total 968.5 MW of installed capacity towards end of 2010 and early 2011. As of 31st March 2013, 77 projectstotalling 852.31 MW were commissioned and operational.
Charanka Solar Park
The Charanka Solar park is spread over about 2000 Hectares in the wastelands of the Rann of Kutch. The Rann of Kutch is a salt marsh at the edge of Thar Desert, andit borders Pakistan. The total area available can be used to set up solar plants of a total 500 MW capacity. Of this, 214 MW has been installed by 21 developers. (As of19th April 2012 Source: GPCL)
Solar Plant performance
The sections below aim to quantify the performance of the solar power plants set up in the state of Gujarat. For the purpose of evaluation, the generation data availablefrom the Gujarat State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC) has been used. Ranking of the power plants has been done on the basis of the Plant Load Factor (PLF) or CapacityUtilisation Factor (CUF). PLF or CUF is calculated as the ratio of actual energy generated (for a given period of time) to the maximum (theoretical) possible generation of
a power system. The formula for CUF is given below.
Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) = Energy measured (kWh) / (365*24*installed capacity of the plant).
While the Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA) has shared a list of 77 commissioned projects totalling 852 MW as of March 31st,2013, the SLDC data is availableonly for 62 projects totalling 832 MW.
Since some of the plants have been in operation for less than a year, only those 50 plants that have been operational for at least 1 year have been ranked.
Ranking of Plants operational for at least 1 Year (Overall) :
The energy yield of a plant will depend on several factors, including type of modules, inverters and other components, usage of tracking systems, design optimization and build
quality. The ranking given below is based only on the energy yield and does not consider the input parameters like design optimisation, components used or build quality.
Rank Developer Capac-
ity
(MW)
Total
Generaon
(MWh)
Normalized
(MWh per
MW per
Year)
CUF Module Type Module Manu-
facturer
Inverter Manu-
facturer
Tilt EPC
1 Konark Gujarat PV Pvt. Ltd. 5 9361.009 1872.2018 21.3% Crystalline Si Vikram Solar AEG Seasonal Tilt Vikram Solar
2 Unity Power 5 9328.561 1865.7122 21.2% Thin Film Solar Froner Power One Fixed Tilt Ennity
3 Mono Steel (india) Ltd 10 18644.292 1864.4292 21.2% Crystalline Si Waaree Power One Seasonal Tilt Waaree
4 WAA Solar Pvt.Ltd 10.22 18461.595 1806.418297 20.6% Thin Film First Solar SMA Not Available Madhav Power
5 Palace Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd. 15 26173.722 1744.9148 19.9% Crystalline Si Candian Solar Power One Seasonal Tilt Etain - immodo / Lourex Group
6 TATA Power Renewable Energy Ltd. 25 43393.098 1735.72392 19.8% Crystalline Si Tata, Canadian Solar ABB Not Available Tata
7 NKG infrastructure Ltd. 10 17310.26 1731.026 19.7% Crystalline Si Solar World Delta (String) PPS Enviro Power
8 Sun Clean Renewable Pvt. Ltd. 6 10341.53 1723.588333 19.6% Thin Film Sharp Power-one Fixed Tilt L&T
9 ZF Steering Gear (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5 8598.95 1719.79 19.6% Thin Film N/A
10 Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd 25 42898.65 1715.946 19.5% Thin Film Nex Power Satoon Fixed Tilt Wipro Eco Energy
11 Gppc Pipavav Power Company Ltd. 5 8570.004 1714.0008 19.5% Crystalline Si Suntech Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Lanco
12 AZURE (Hariyana) 10.2 17401.797 1706.058529 19.4% Crystalline Si Suntech Self
13 Alex Astral Power Pvt. Ltd 25 42530.899 1701.23596 19.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA Cirus Solar
14 Green Infra Solar Energy Ltd. 10 17012.341 1701.2341 19.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Juwi
15 Solareld Energy Pvt. Ltd. 20 33948.276 1697.4138 19.3% Thin Film Sharp Sharp Fixed Tilt L&T
16 Welspun Urja Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. 15 25458.575 1697.238333 19.3% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Conergy (Sun Technics)
17 SEI Solar Power Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. 25 42415.609 1696.62436 19.3% Crystalline Si Chin/Trina Power One Fixed Tilt L&T
18 BACKBONE Enterprises Ltd. 5 8452.757 1690.5514 19.2% Thin Film Nexpower Siemens Not Available Self
19 Millenium Synergy (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. 10 16870.807 1687.0807 19.2% Crystalline Si Trina SMA Single Axis L&T
20 ACME Solar Technology 15 25180.906 1678.727067 19.1% Thin Film First Solar ABB Fixed Tilt M+W
21 ESP Urja Pvt. Ltd. 5 8345.851 1669.1702 19.0% Thin Film Sharp SMA
22 PLG Photovolc Ltd. 20 33140.469 1657.02345 18.9% Crystalline Si PLG / Kyocera Power One Fixed Tilt Zamil Group
23 ICML 9 14802.466 1644.718444 18.7% Crystalline Si LDK IDS
24 GMR Gujarat Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. 25 40983.17 1639.35268 18.7% C-Si Canadian Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Indu Project (Cirus)
25 GHI Energy Pvt. Ltd. 10 16336.161 1633.6161 18.6% Crystalline Si Suntech
26 Emami Cement Ltd 10 16310.494 1631.0494 18.6% C-Si TATA BP ABB Fixed Tilt Tata BP
15
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
18/44
27 Moser Baer Energy & Development Ltd. 15 24456.697 1630.446467 18.6% Thin Film First Solar,Moserbaer, Oupont
SMA Not Available Moser Baer
28 Precious Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. 15.2 24719.672 1626.294211 18.5% Thin Film First Solar,
Moserbaer, Oupont
SMA Not Available Moser Baer
29 Azure Power (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. 5 8078.944 1615.7888 18.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA/Poweron Not Available
30 AEL(Solar) - Adani 40 64331.765 1608.294125 18.3% Thin Film Sunwell / Sunner Well SMA Fixed Tilt Aries Waaree
31 Solitaire Energies Pvt. Ltd. 15 24100.389 1606.6926 18.3% Thin Film First Solar, Moserbaer N/A Not Available Moser Baer
32 Sand Land Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 25 40061.177 1602.44708 18.2% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
33 GPCL 5 7947.638 1589.5276 18.1% c-Si C-Sun
34 GMDC 5 7930.4 1586.08 18.1% Crystalline Si Tata BP Power One Fixed Tilt Tata BP
35 Surana Telecom & Power Ltd. 5 7914.732 1582.9464 18.0% c-Si Surana AEG Fixed Tilt Self
36 LANCO (BHRD) 5 7821.247 1564.2494 17.8% Crystalline Si N/A Hellos Systems Lanco
37 EMCO Ltd 5 7787.114 1557.4228 17.7% Crystalline Si Trina Ingeteam
38 Visual Percept Solar Projects Pvt. Ltd. 25 38359.028 1534.36112 17.5% Crystalline Si Hanwha Solarone Power One Fixed Tilt Sterling and Wilson
39 GIPCL 5 7626.817 1525.3634 17.4% Crystalline Si Titan ABB
40 Louroux Bio Energies Ltd. 25 37676.577 1507.06308 17.2% Thin Film Tianwel and Sungen Siemens Fixed Tilt Inspira Marfer
41 Hiraco Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. 20 29567.821 1478.39105 16.8% Crystalline Si Hanwha Solarone SMA Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
42 Ganeshvani Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. 5 7241.912 1448.3824 16.5% Crystalline Si Trina Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Insolare Energy Pvt. Ltd.
43 CBC Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd 10 14225.313 1422.5313 16.2% Crystalline Si Trina Bonglioli Not Available Moser Baer
44 AES Solar Energy Gujarat Pvt. Ltd 14.92 20896.17 1400.544035 15.9% Thin Film First Solar Power Oner Fixed Tilt Ennity
45 Jaihind Project 5 6878.733 1375.7466 15.7% Crystalline Si Nantong Helofax Fixed Tilt Self
46 Lanco infratech ltd. 15.01 20432.741 1361.275217 15.5% Crystalline Si C-Sun Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Self
47 Solar Semiconductor Power Company 20 26205.372 1310.2686 14.9% Thin Film Sunwell Santerno Fixed Tilt Self
48 Lanco (Chandiyana) 15.01 19096.039 1272.221119 14.5% Crystalline Si and
Thin Film
Trina/Dupont/ CSUN Bonglioli, Elt ek,
REFUSol
Fixed Tilt Self
49 Arvali Infapower ltd. 5 5529.347 1105.8694 12.6% Crystalline Si LDK Eltek Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
50 Gangesh Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. 25.08 26947.408 1074.458054 12.2% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Not Available
Total 665.64
(Note : Plants operational in the Charanka Solar Park are highlighted in yellow)
From the above list, it can be seen that Konark Gujarat PV Pvt Limited comes rst overall, and it narrowly edges its nearest rival, possibly due to its seasonal tilt mecha-nism. Among plants with xed tilt mounting structures, Unity Power (Welspun) is the number one, with a CUF of 21.2%.
A word of caution here the ranking above is not an indicator of how good or bad a component or EPC is. The CUF will depend on some more factors like build quality,
Balance of Systems used (cables, structures, etc) and design optimization.
Ranking of Plants operational for at least 1 Year (Charanka Solar Park)
Rank Developer Capacity
(MW)
Total Genera-
on (MWh)
Normalized
(MWh per
MW per
Year)
CUF Module
Type
Module
Manufacturer
Inverter
Manufac-
turer
Tilt EPC
1 Palace Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd 15 26173.72 1744.9148 19.9% Crystalline Si Candian Solar Power One Seasonal
Tilt
Etain - Immodo / Lourex Group
2 NKG Infrastructure Ltd 10 17310.26 1731.026 19.7% Crystalline Si Solarworld Delta
(String)
PPS Enviro Power
3 Sun Clean Renewable Pvt. Ltd. 6 10341.53 1723.588333 19.6% Thin Film Sharp Power - One Fixed Tilt L&T
4 ZF Steering Gear (india) Pvt. Ltd. 5 8598.95 1719.79 19.6% Thin Film N/A
5 Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. 25 42898.65 1715.946 19.5% Thin Film Nex Power Satcon Fixed Tilt Wipro Eco Energy
6 GPPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. 5 8570.004 1714.0008 19.5% Crystalline Si Suntech Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Lanco
7 Alex Astral Power Pvt. Lt.d 25 42530.899 1701.23596 19.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA Cirus Solar
8 Solareld Energy Pvt. Ltd. 20 33948.276 1697.4138 19.3% Thin Film Sharp Sharp Fixed Tilt L&T
9 SEI Solar Power Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. 25 42415.609 1696.62436 19.3% Crystalline Si Chint/Trina Power One Fixed Tilt L&T
10 GMR Gujarat Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. 25 40983.817 1639.35268 18.7% c-Si Canadian
Solar
SMA Fixed Tilt Indu Project (Cirus)
11 Emami Cement Ltd 10 16310.494 1631.0494 18.6% c-Si TATA BP ABB Fixed Tilt TATA BP
12 GPCL 5 7947.638 1589.5276 18.1% c-Si C-Sun
13 Surana Telecom & Power Ltd 5 7914.732 1582.9464 18.0% c-Si Surana AEG Fixed Tilt Self
14 AES Solar Energy Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. 14.92 20896.117 1400.544035 15.9% Thin Slim First Solar Power One Fixed Tilt Ennity
15 Lanco Infratech Ltd. 15.01 20432. 1448.3824 16.5% Crystalline Si C-Sun Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Self
Total 210.93
16
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
19/44
In case of Charanka, Palace Solar has the highest CUF, very closely followed by NKG Infrastructure and Sun Clean Renewables.
Ranking of Plants operational for at least 1 Year (Outsid e Charanka Solar Park)
Rank Developer Capacity
(MW)
Total Genera-
ton (MWh)
Normalized (MWh per
MW per Year)
CUF Module Type Module Manu-
facturer
Inverter
Manufac-
turer
Tilt EPC
1 Konark Gujarat PV Pvt. Ltd. 5 9361.009 1872.2018 21.3% Crystalline Si Vikram Solar AEG Seasonal Tilt Vikram Solar
2 Unity Power 5 9328.561 1865.7122 21.2% Thin Film Solar Froner Power One Fixed Ti lt Ennity
3 Mono Steel (india) Ltd. 10 18644.292 1864.4292 21.2% Crystalline Si Waaree Power One Seasonal Tilt Waaree
4 WAA Solar Pvt. Ltd. 10.22 18461.595 1806.418297 20.6% Thin Film First Solar SMA Not Available Madhav Power
5 TATA Power Renewable Energy Ltd. 25 43393.098 1735.72392 19.8% Crystalline Si Tata, Canadian Solar ABB Not Avaliable Tata
6 Azure (Hariyana) 10.2 17401.797 1706.058529 19.4% Crystalline Si Suntech Self
7 Green Infra Solar Energy Ltd. 10 17012.341 1701.2341 19.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Juwi
8 Welspun Urja Gujarat Pvt. Ltd. 15 25458.575 1697.238333 19.3% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Conergy (Sun
Technics)
9 BACKBONE Enterprises Ltd. 5 8452.757 1690.5514 19.2% Thin Film Nex Power Siemens Not Available Self
10 Millenium Synergy (Gujarat) pvt.Ltd. 10 16870.807 1687.0807 19.2% Crystalline Si Trina SMA Single Axis L&T
11 ACME Solar Technology 15 25180.906 1678.727067 19.1% Thin Film First Solar ABB Fixed Tilt M+W
12 ESP Urja Pvt. Ltd. 5 8345.851 1669.1702 19.0% Thin Film Sharp SMA
13 PLG Photovolc Ltd. 20 33140.469 1657.02345 18.9% Crystalline Si PLG / Kyocera Power One Fixed Tilt Zamil Group
14 ICML 9 14802.466 1644.718444 18.7% Crystalline Si LDK IDS
15 GHI Energy Pvt. Ltd. 10 16336.161 1633.6161 18.6% Crystalline Si Suntech
16 Moser Baer Energy & Development Ltd 15 24456.697 1630.446467 18.6% Thin Film First Solar, Mose-
baer, Dupont
SMA Not Available Moser Bear
17 Precious Energy Services Pvt. Ltd. 15.2 24719.672 1626.294211 18.5% Thin Film First Solar, Mose-
baer, Dupont
SMA Not Available Moser Bear
18 Azure Power (Gujarat) Pvt. Ltd. 5 8078.944 1615.7888 18.4% Thin Film First Solar SMA/PowerOn Not Available
19 AEL (Solar) - Adani 40 64331.765 1608.294125 18.3% Thin Film Sunwell/ Sunner Wel SMA Fixed Tilt Aries Waaree
20 Solitarire Energy Pvt. Ltd. 15 24100.389 1606.6926 18.3% Thin Film First Solar, Moserbaer N/A Not Available Moser Baer
21 Sand Land Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 25 40061.177 1602.44708 18.2% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
22 GMDC 5 7930.4 1586.08 18.1% Crystalline Si Tata BP Power One Fixed Tilt Tata BP
23 LANCO(BHRD) 5 7821.247 1564.2494 17.8% Crystalline Si N/A Hellios
System
Lanco
24 EMCO Ltd. 5 7787.114 1557.4228 17.7% Crystalline Si Trina Ingeteam
25 Visual Percept Solar Projects Pvt. Ltd. 25 38359.028 1534.36112 17.5% Crystalline Si Hanwha Solarone Power One Fixed Tilt Sterling and
Wilson
26 GIPCL 5 7626.817 1525.3634 17.4% Crystalline Si Titan ABB
27 Louroux Bio Energies Ltd. 25 37676.577 1507.06308 17.2% Thin Film Tianwei and Sungen Siemens Fixed Tilt Inspira Martifier
28 Hiraco Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. 20 29567.821 1478.39105 16.8% Crystalline Si Hanwha Solarone SMA Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
29 Ganeshvani Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. 5 7241.912 1448.3824 16.5% Crystalline Si Trina Bonglioli Fixed Tilt Insolare En-
ergy Pvt. Ltd.
30 CBC Solar Technologies Pvt.Ltd. 10 14225.313 1422.5313 16.2% Crystalline Si Trina Bonglioli Not Available Moser Baer
31 Jaihind Project 5 6878.733 1375.7466 15.7% Crystalline Si Nantong Helofax Fixed Tilt Self
32 Solar Semiconductor Power Company 20 26205.372 1310.2686 14.9% Thin Film Sunwell Santerno Fixed Tilt Not Available
33 Lanco (Chandiyana) 15.01 19096.039 1272.22119 14.5% Crystalline
Si and Thin
Film
Trina/Dupont/CSUN Bonglioli,
Eltek,
REFUSOL
Fixed Tilt Self
34 Arvali infrapower Ltd. 5 5529.347 1105.8694 12.6% Crystalline Si LDK Eltek Fixed Tilt Moser Baer
35 Gangesh Green Energy pvt. Ltd. 25.08 26947.408 1074.458054 12.2% Thin Film First Solar SMA Fixed Tilt Not Available
Total 454.71
Incidentally, the rst 4 top ranking plants in the entire state of Gujarat are outside Charanka Solar Park.
Seasonal Characteristi cs
The seasonal variation graph represented below has been rendered using data from power plants which have completed one year of operation. All numbers in the graphhave been normalized to the total MWh generated per MW of installed capacity.
The plant with the best performance characteristics, M/s Konark Gujarat Pvt Ltd, had a peak monthly production of 189.95 MWh/MWp in May 2012. Though this is not
a characteristic of all the plants in the sample set, a vast majority had peak production that fell in one of three months March, April or May. The highest individual peakgeneration recorded was 216.39 MWh/MWp by M/s Backbone Enterprises Ltd in the month of May 2012 but the annual production of this plant was lower than the topranking power plant.
17
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
20/44
The lowest generation is merely presented here to provide a representation of the lowest perfor-mance and should not be treated as the general performance of power plants in Gujarat. It can
be clearly seen that the average performance closely follows the generation characteristic of thebest performing power plant in the sample set. The average annual performance is estimated tobe 1581.78 MWh/MWp.
Seasonal Characteristi cs Charanka
The seasonal variation for plants in Charanka is presented below.
The performance of the highest rated power plant can be taken as representative of the perfor-mance of all the power plants in the Charanka Solar Park as the difference between the average
value and the highest generation is minimal. Peak power output from the solar park was produced
in the month of May as opposed to the three month spread seen in the above scenario. Addition-ally, a secondary peak is seen in the month of October which is slightly lower than the productionnumbers in May. The best performing power plant, M/s Palace Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd., had a peakgeneration of 172.63 MWh/MWp in the month of March 2013 while the highest recorded genera-
tion for a given month is 179.76 MWh/MWp also generated in the same month by M/s ZF SteeringGear (India) pvt. ltd.
Interestingly, though the plant with the lowest CUF (M/s Lanco Infratech Ltd) produced signi -
cantly lower output in the rst few months of operation, the yield caught up during the latter part ofthe year indicating that the plant was experiencing teething issues. It is likely that when the data for
the next year is compiled, the lowest performance numbers would be more in line with the averageand that the degree of variation between the highest and lowest numbers would be minimal. Theaverage yield per year is estimated to be about 1643.28 MWh/MWp, which is comparatively higher
than the average yield seen across the state of Gujarat (non-Charanka average).
Crystalli ne Silicon vs. Thin Film Technolo gies
To identify the difference between the choice of the module makes, we looked at the performance of power plants within the same region (only plants in the Charanka
Solar Park were chosen) so as to minimize the variations that may be attributed to external factors such as irradiation conditions, grid availability etc. In addition to this,
the Charanka solar park has an almost even distribution between c-Si and TF installed capacity. While analysing the results, it can be seen that the TF modules performmarginally better than the c-Si modules with an average performance advantage of about 0.4%.
Looking at the seasonal variation characteristics of the plants (refer image below), it is easy to spot the difference. Plants using TF modules have higher generation thanplants using c-Si modules in hotter months (April to July) while c-Si modules have higher generation in colder months (December to February) which can be attributed tothe lower temperature derating coefcient of TF modules compared to c-Si modules (which have a comparatively higher temperature coefcient).
We would however like to emphasise that the data is not sufcient enough to say one technology is better than the other.
String inverter vs. Central inverter
Continuing in the similar vein of the TF vs c-Si discussion, we did a brief analysis of the performance ofstring inverters compared to central inverters. It should be noted that the sample set available for stringinverters is minimal and limited to just one in the Charanka solar park.
With this in mind, the average performance of the top central inverter plants was compared to the perfor-
mance of the solitary string inverter plant. The only real observation which can be made from this com-parison is that the string inverters offer better performance in the winter as opposed to central inverters
which can be attributed to the fact that the solar park using string inverters has more MPPTs and hencea better MPPT window when compared to plants using central inverters.
Conclusion
Of the 50 plants for which performance data is available for at least one year, the annual Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) for 70% of the plants is above 18%. The top 3
plants had CUFs of more than 21%. In case of Charanka Solar Park, most of the plants have an annual CUF of more than 18%.
One very interesting insight that can be drawn from the performance ranking is that the right component selection is a necessary, but not sufcient condition for the optimalperformance of a plant. One inference that could be drawn is that a developer should pay equal attention to the selection of the balance of system components, ensure
design optimisation and select the right EPC contractors who can ensure build quality and high plant uptimes. Another aspect that could have an impact on the plantCUFs is the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of the plants. A plant that has a very good performance monitoring system (remote monitoring or local SCADA) and is well
maintained will obviously lead to higher generation.
In terms of PV module technology selection, the difference in plant performance of crystalline Silicon and Thin Film technologies has been found to be very minor. In order
to draw any conclusion, we will have to wait for longer term performance of the plants and also get additional plant information like plant design, BOS components used,O&M pract ices, among others. The Central vs String Inverter debate is also inconclusive since we could compare the performance of only 2 plants, each using one of the inverter
topologies (Central or string).
To conclude, the plant performance data made available by the State of Gujarat has been providing some very valuable insights into the PV plant performance which willhelp increase the condence of the investor community on the technical aspects of the solar PV plant. I t also helps other states in the formulation and execution of theirpolicies and regulations.
RESolve Energy Consultants would once again like to acknowledge the work done by
Mr. Jigneshbhai Shah and M/s Movya Consultancy Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad, India, which have been used in this report.
18
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
21/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
22/44
5050+ articles
2000000+ page views
1300+ newsletters delivered
SPEArheading thought leadership
through our expertise and market intelligence
SErving renewable energy and cleantech
news in INDIA daily since 2010
AND we have now reloaded !
NEWS, ANALYSIS AND INSIGHTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGYAND CLEANTECH INDUSTRY IN INDIA
www.panchabuta.com
Twitter : http://twitter.com/panchabutaFacebook : http://www.facebook.com/panchabuta
Email : [email protected]
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
23/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
24/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
OUTLOOK ON INDIAN SOLAR SECTOR
After entering the 1 GW club in 2012, India is all set to join the countries with more than 2 GW capacity by
the end of 2013. As of 31st July 2013, India had a total grid connected capacity of 1,839 MW (Source: MNRE).
While the solar policy of Gujarat was the engine for the growth of the sector to reach the 1 GW stage, the
JNNSM Phase I was inst rumental in reaching the 2 GW milestone. The JNNSM Phase II and the solar initia-
tives by various states will drive the future growth of the sector.
is expected to experience energy
shortage of 6.7% and peak short-
age of 2.3% for the year 2013-14
The Solar Resource map which depicts
the GHI data is given below.
Policy and RegulatoryFramework
In India, the growth of the solar sector
is driven mainly by the policies at the
central and the state government level.
In addition to policies, regulations in the
form of Renewable Purchase Obligation
(RPO) also play a key role in the growth
of the sector.
Jawaharlal Nehru National SolarMission (JNNSM)
The Ministry of New and Renewable
Energy (MNRE)s flagship programme
is the JNNSM. Since its launch in 2009,
JNNSM has been the key driver of the
growth of the Indian solar industr y. The
mission stipulates insta llation targets of
20 GW of grid-connected and 2 GW of
offgrid solar power by 2022 (both PV and
CSP) to be completed in three phases.
Phase I - (2009-13) 1,000-2,000 MW
Phase II - (2013-17) 4,000-10,000 MW
Phase III - (2017-22) 20,000 MW
Phase I
In the f irst of its three phases, from 2010
to 2013, the government incentivized
the construction of 1,000 MW of grid-
connected power plants. Both PV
and CSP based solar installations are
given equal precedence with 500 MW of
capacity being allocated for each
technology.
The projects under Phase I fall into three
categories
Projects under migration scheme
Projects allotted under the Rooftop
PV & Small Solar power Generation
Programme (RPSSGP)
Projects allotted through NTPC
Vidyut Vyapar Nigam (NVVN)
For the first batch of projects allotted
through the NVVN which commenced
in late 2010, as many as 333 project
developers had put forward bids worth
1,815 MW for 150 MW of PV projects. As
Solar Growth Drivers inIndia
Even though the 2 GW capacity is min-
iscule in the 100 GW installed capacity
globally, India is considered a natural
market for solar because
i. India has one of the highest irradia-
tion levels in the world
ii. The peak power deficit in the country
- according to the Central Electric-
ity Authority (CEA), the country
22
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
25/44
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
26/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
the volume of developers interested in
solar projects was much higher than an-
ticipated, the government opted to go for
a competitive reverse bidding process so
that all developers were given an equal
chance.
Developers that offered the highest dis-
count on the initial tariff of Rs. 17.91/kWhwould be given preference and allotted
projects until the 150 MW of capacity
(for solar PV) was filled. The competi-
tive bidding process resulted in develop-
ers placing highly competitive bids. The
rates quoted by the winners were in the
range Rs. 10.9 to 12.7/kWh for solar PV as a
result of which tariffs fell by around 30%
to an average of Rs. 11.8/kWh.
Subsequently, the guidelines for Phase I
Batch II of the solar PV allocations were
announced in early Augus t 2011 with
the bidding process coming to a close on
3rd December 2011. The result of this
round of bidding was even more star-
tling than the first. The tariffs quoted
in this round of bidding ranged between
Rs. 7.49/kWh to Rs. 9.44/kWh. The
bidding for Batch II clearly indicat-
ed a sharp decline in the solar tariffs
across the country. The lowest bid of
Rs. 7.49/kWh by Solairedirect sent
shockwaves across the indus-
try. Though the industry expect-
ed a drop in tariff, a fall of this
magnitude was not foreseen. The aver-
age tariff quoted fell by about 25% to
Rs.8.88/kWh as developers and EPCs start-
ed coming to grips with the nuances of the
solar PV sector.
A tota l of 1,152 MW were allotted by t he
MNRE in the Phase I of JNNSM. The
details are given below.
Phase I ProjectsAllotted (MW)
Batch I PV Proj-
ects through
NVVN
150
Batch I CSP
Projects
through NVVN
470
PV projects
under Migration
scheme
54
CSP Projects
through Migra-
tion scheme
30
RPSSGP (PV) 98.05
Total 802.05
Batch II
PV Projects
through NVVN
350
Grand Total 1152.05
Of these allotted projects, a majority of
the PV plants have been commissioned.
But under CSP, only 52.5 MW capacity
has been commissioned.
Phase II
The MNRE released the draft guidelines
for the JNNSM Phase II. Some of the sa-
lient features are as follows
a. Target for Phase II (2012-17) 10 GW
cumulative capacity addition in utility
scale and 1 GW in off-grid. Of this, 4
GW will be under the central scheme
and 6 GW under the various state initia-
tives. The 6 GW under the state initia-
tives will be met by the enforcement of
Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO).
The breakup between PV and CSP for
the states is as follows.
Proposed share of Solar PV & Solar thermal
and Central/State during Phase II
Technology Ratio Central
Schemes
State
Schemes
Solar PV 70% 40% 60%
Solar
Thermal
30% 40% 60%
(Source: MNRE)
Proposed share of target capacity mix
Technology Capacity
(MW)
Central
Schemes
(MW)
State
Schemes
(MW)
Solar PV 6300 2520 3780
Solar
Thermal
2700 1080 1620
Total 9000 3600 5400
(Source: MNRE)
b. Financing Implementation of Phase
II will have to rely upon a combination of
various schemes like Generation Based
Timeline for achieving the targets (in MW) under the central scheme
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015- 16 2016-17 Total
Rooftop & Small
Solar
PV 100 100 200
Bundling
PV 800 800
VGF
PV 750 770 1520
Thermal 1080 1080
Total PV 1650 870 2520
Total Thermal 1080 1080
Grand Total 3600
24
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
27/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
Incentive (GBI), Viability Gap Funding
(VGF) and Bundling schemes.
i. Bundling The target under
bundling will be finalised based on
deliberations with Minis try of Power
(MoP), but it is unlikely to be signifi-
cant due to t he limited availability of
conventional power from unallocatedcentral quota.
ii. GBI Total target will be 60 MW.
Only states that did not get allot-
ment under the first phase of the
GBI scheme will be eligible for this
scheme. GBI assistance from the
MNRE will be about Rs. 2-3/kWh.
iii. VGF This will be the most preva-
lent mechanism under Phase II. Un-
der this option, bidders would bid for
viability gap funding requirement inRs/MW and the bidder with mini-
mum VGF requirement would be se-
lected.
c. Rooftop installations Target of 1 GW
through both grid-connected and off-
grid rooftop systems.
d. Domestic content requirement
Several options are explored, but a final
decision has not been made yet.
f. Off-grid systems - The upper limit foroff-grid systems eligible for subsidy has
been increased to 500 kWp.
Phase II allocation under Viability
Gap Funding (VGF)
With the unallocated electricity quota
under Phase I of JNNSM no longer avail-
able and the fact that NVVN (NTPC) is
no longer the procurer of solar electric-
ity under the JNNSM, MNRE has estab-
lished the Solar Energy Corporation of
India (SECI) for handling the power pro-
curement from the second phase of the
JNNSM.
In this scenario however, SECIs role
would be limited to providing an upfront
subsidy known as Viability Gap Funding
(VGF) which is basically a part payment
made by SECI to the project developer
in order to make the project viable. In
this scenario, the developer opting for
the lowest amount of funding to bridge
the gap would be chosen first and so on.
This is a new form of reverse bidding
wherein the developer would no longer
quote the electricity tariff but the quan-
tum of money required to make the proj-
ect viable. In view of this, MNRE has
released the draft guidelines for the firs t
phase of second batch under JNNSM for
setting up of 750 MW of solar capacity.Some of the information presented in
the draft document is highlighted below.
Total capacity 750 MW
- Min capacity 10 MW
- Max capacity 50 MW
- All projects to be allocated in
multiples of 10 MW
- Max allocation per bidder or com-
pany 100 MW
Tariff The tariff would be fixed
at R s.5. 45/kWh for 25 years or
Rs.4.95/kWh (with AD benefit)
Upper limit of VGF 30% of project
cost or Rs. 2.5 Crores/MW whichever
is lower
Equity contribution At least
Rs. 1.5 Crores/MW
Timeline for VGF disbursal
- 25% at time of delivery of at least
50% of major equipment (modules,
inverters, mounting structures,
switchgear and transformer) on site
- 50% after full commissioning
- 25% after one year of successful
operation
Domestic content requirement it
has only been stated that 75% per-
centage of the solar capacity would
be reserved for projects with do-
mestic content while the rest of the
projects would be free to procure
components from any country. DCR
would mean that both the solar cells
and modules would have to be man-
ufactured in India.
Financial closure within 180 days
of signing PPA
Payment security SECI would set
up a payment security corpus from
the encashment of bank guarantees,
interest earned on this fund, incen-
tives for early payment, the extra
money coming from 10% lower tar-
iff to developers claiming AD and
grants from Government/National
Clean Energy Fund (NCEF). This fundwould cover three months of pay-
ment to the project developer.
State Policy Scenario
As per the JNNSM Phase II guidelines,
60% of the targeted capacity will be
through state policies. Each state has
to meet its own Renewable Purchase
Obligations (RPO) leading them to come
up with solar initiatives.
Two states had been pioneers in announcingand implementing their respective state
policies - Gujarat and Karnataka. Of these,
the Gujarat state policy is the one that is
both aggressive and ambitious, with Gujarat
looking to add close to 1 GW of solar PV
in the coming years. On the other hand,
even though Karnataka had announced its
policy and also completed the first round
of allocations, projects are yet to be com-
missioned. In addition to these two states,
several other states have announced solar
policies that are either in draft stages orunder advanced stages of implementa-
tion including Madhya Pradesh, Tamil
Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and AndhraPradesh.
Gujarat State Policy
The state of Gujarat was the first Indi-
an state to launch its own solar policy
in 2009, showing significant foresight
with regards to the promise that solar
holds for the future of energy generation
in the country. The current policy is op-
erative until 2014. The initial target wasto achieve an installed capacity of 500
MW. However, given the interest from
a large number of developers and a like-
lihood that a significant number of the
initial projects might not materialize, the
government allocated projects totalling
968.5 MW capacity.
As of 31st July 2013, Gujarat had a solar
installed capacity of 857 MW and con-
tributed to almost half of all the insta lla-
tions in the country.
25
-
7/27/2019 Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013
28/44
Panchabuta-Renewable Energy & Cleantech in India www.panchabuta.com
The Gujarat Solar Policy is the only policy
in the country, which has awarded projects
with a fixed FiT, on a first-come first-
serve basis. In view of this and the fact
that there werent too many restrictions
imposed on developers, the amount of
interested parties who were allotted
projects was significant. This laid the
foundation for the meteoric rise of Gujaratas a hub for solar projects in the country.
The tariff structure has been de-
signed so that higher rates are offered
during the first 12 years of the proj-
ect, with lower rates from the 13th
year onwards. This has a positive in-
fluence on cash flows as debt repay-
ment usually occurs within the first
12 years of operation of the powerplant which helps alleviate some of
the concerns that developers have
with regards to debt repayment con-
sidering the fact that solar was much
more capital intensive compared to
competing technologies.
Other State Policies
Following the success of the prevalent statepolicies, numerous other states followed
suit, driven both by the need to bridge the
demand-supply gap in power generation as
well as the mandate to fulfil their Renew-
able Purchase Obligation. A brief summary
of these state policies is provided below.
State Status of solar in state
Gujarat Announced - 968.5 MW,
Commissioned - 857 MW
Maharashtra Announced - 205 MW,
Commissioned - 40 MW(Setup in Rajasthan),
(In addition, 125 MW com-
missioned by Mahagenco)
Kar nat aka Commis sion ed - 8 MW,
Plans for 600 MW; Bids
invited - 80 MW in Round 1
and 130 MW in Round 2
Raja sthan Announced 200 MW, Fi rs t
round of allocation of
75 MW complete
Odisha Awarded - 25 MW,
Announced - 50 MW
Madhya
Pradesh
Awarded - 200 MW,
130 MW expected to be
commissioned by
September 2013.
Tami l Nadu Announced - 3000 MW
(by 2015), first round of
bidding for 1000 MW was
done in January 2013. LOIs
issued for 690 MW
Andhra
Pradesh
Announced - 1000 MW,
Bidding process complete.
LOI issued.
Kerala Announced 500 MW (by
2017)
Bihar Announced 150 MW
Punjab Announced - 1000 MW (by
2022) - Bids invited
300 MW in 2013 and 251 MW
of projects allotted
Uttar Pradesh Announced - 500 MW
target by 2017. 250 MW of
projects allotted
(Source: MNRE and other state policy
documents)
Geographical Distribution
The nations flagship solar policy, the
Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission
(JNNSM), and the policy of the state of
Gujarat which was implemented in two
phases have been instrumental in kick-
starting the sector. About 1 GW of proj-
ects were allotted under each of these
two policies. Interestingly, a majority ofsolar projects under the JNNSM came up
in the state of Rajasthan due to the high
irradiation and availability of inexpen-
sive arid land.
Naturally, a vast m