TECA is not against solar energy: TECA President

Coimbatore, Jan 25:  

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Consumers Association (TECA), Coimbatore, has clarified that it is only against the solar purchase obligation imposed on the industry and is not against the development and use of solar energy.

TECA also questioned the wisdom of enforcing this obligation on the industry that was already subsidising much of the power consumed when the installed capacity of solar power was grossly inadequate to meet the minimum solar energy obligation.

D. Balasundaram, President, TECA, in a statement, said that the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) had on January 21 set aside the purchase obligation imposed on the members of TECA by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC). This was mentioned as a “setback” to the development of solar energy and by implication, TECA was held as being responsible for it, which was not correct.

He said TECA was “in favour of the development of solar energy” in the State and it welcomed the steps taken by the State Government in this regard. But what it resisted was the imposition of purchase obligation that was not only impossible to fulfil but was unfair as well since it “selectively increases the cost of electricity” to its members.

Explaining the reasons for the opposition, he said TECA members were already complying with the TNERC Renewable Energy Purchase Obligations of 2010 that required certain specified entities to meet 9 per cent of their energy needs from renewable sources, of which 0.05 per cent has to be solar energy. But TNERC imposed an additional obligation as solar purchase obligation which was over the renewable energy obligation “which is contrary to law”.

Balasundaram pointed out that many consumers had made significant investment in other forms of renewable energy like wind and biomass energy. Such investors were also sought to meet the solar power obligation. But TNERC’s order on solar purchase obligation was not binding on the “largest of the obligated buyer Tangedco’ and “this discrimination is contrary to law”.

He argued that the solar purchase obligation sought to put the responsibility of purchase on select groups of HT consumers and LT commercial consumers who account for only 31 per cent of the total power consumed in Tamil Nadu. It was unfair to put the entire burden of subsidising production of solar energy on a group of consumers already groaning under high tariff.

Balasundaram drew attention to the high solar purchase obligation at 6 per cent during 2014. This implied that about 4,000 million units of solar power had to be bought during 2014-15 for which there should be installed capacity of 1,500 MW of solar power. But the available solar capacity was “grossly insufficient” to meet this requirement.

Realising this, Tangedco has sought postponement of the solar purchase obligation which is to be heard by TNERC on Jan 27. The high rate of SPO would benefit only the solar energy producers and Tangedco itself had admitted that the SPO was being `imposed to ensure the financial viability’ of the solar energy producers.

Pitching for the development of solar energy, the TECA President said that his organisation understood the imperative need for development of solar energy as the state lacked fossil fuel. It also appreciated the need for supporting green energy. But this should come by way of `appropriate incentives’ from the Central and State Governments and not by `imposing its costs on only certain categories of consumers’.

If need be, the obligation to buy solar power may be imposed on electricity distributing companies and not on the retail consumers. This obligation should extend to all renewable energy sources.

Balasundaram said while cost of installation of solar power was high, the power generation per MW of capacity was very low, pushing up the generation cost steeply. It was necessary that the solar power producers were assured of purchase of the power produced.

He said the Government was made to believe that solar purchase obligation (SPO) would help achieve this goal. But neither the impact of the SPO on the obligated consumers nor the legality of imposing it were "thoroughly examined", resulting ''in the order of APTEL''. Reiterating TECA’s support for solar energy development, he said TECA was willing to work with the Government to achieve this goal. 

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/states/teca-is-not-against-solar-energy-teca-president/article5617570.ece