Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013

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


2/44


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.


4/44


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


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


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.


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


7/44


8/44


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


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


tion for 20

years of

project life

WestBengal


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


9/44


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-


10/44


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


11/44


12/44


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


13/44


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)


14/44


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)


15/44

*FY 2012 - 13


16/44


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


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


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


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


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


21/44


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]


23/44


24/44


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


25/44


26/44


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


27/44


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


28/44


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

Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013

Documents

Transcript of Panchabuta Handbook Book Format 2013