MNRE Adds 402 MW of Solar Cell Capacity to ALMM, Total Nears 38 GW

Bihar Proposes 500 kW Cap for Rooftop Solar Net Metering

Soleos Energy Files Draft Papers for Initial Public Offering

Daily News Wrap-Up: India’s Transmission Plan Faces Execution Test

EU Solar-Storage Jobs Near 1 Million Mark, Manufacturing Employment Dips

PetroGreen Subsidiaries Secure $20 Million for 40 MW Solar Project

Fengate Asset Management Closes Acquisition of Accelergen Energy

Kanpur Packaging Manufacturer Installs Rooftop Solar to Cut Power Costs

TERI Announces Winner of 115 MWh Battery Storage Auction

Power Ministry Revises RoW Compensation Rules for Transmission Lines

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/amazon_polly_105764.mp3?version=1790244510">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://www.uperc.org/Default2.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UPERC</a>) has dismissed a petition filed by a captive solar power consumer seeking permission to supply electricity received from the Noida Power Company (<a href="https://www.noidapower.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NPCL</a>) to its wholly owned subsidiary and group companies on the same premises.
The Commission questioned the petitioner, <a href="https://www.jubilantpharmova.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jubilant Pharmova,</a> on how it would differentiate between electricity supplied by NPCL and that generated by its captive power facility.
During the hearing, Jubilant Pharmova sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. The Commission granted the request.
Background 
Jubilant Pharmova approached UPERC seeking an exemption under Clause 4.46(a) of the Electricity Supply Code, 2005, to supply electricity received from NPCL, including renewable energy, to its wholly owned subsidiary, Jubilant Biosys, and group companies, Jubilant Ingrevia and Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products, which are located on the same premises.
It had executed a registered lease deed with the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority on March 19, 2004, for 90 years. Under an agreement dated June 6, 2011, NPCL had been supplying electricity to the premises.
Jubilant Pharmova also entered into a power supply and offtake agreement with Isharays Energy Two to supply 5.89 MW of solar power from a captive generating plant to meet its additional electricity demand.
The company said portions of its premises had been sub-leased to Jubilant Biosys, Jubilant Ingrevia, and Jubilant Agri and Consumer Products for research and development activities. It sought permission to supply these entities with electricity received from NPCL and/or a licensed electricity producer or trader.
During a hearing on January 6, 2026, the Commission questioned how Jubilant Pharmova would differentiate between electricity received from the distribution licensee and electricity obtained from the solar captive generating plant or through open access. The company&#8217;s counsel sought time to respond.
Jubilant Pharmova later submitted that the Isharays Energy Two plant was a group captive project and that the company was one of its captive users. It sought another four weeks to consult NPCL officials and submit a methodology for differentiating between electricity drawn from the distribution licensee and the captive generating plant.
However, Jubilant Pharmova acknowledged that it could not find a feasible solution for differentiating between the two sources of electricity. It also said that discussions with NPCL had raised the question of whether the Commission’s approval was required because the petitioner and the group companies were situated on the same premises.
Commission’s Analysis 
UPERC observed that Clause 4.46(a), which Jubilant Pharmova had relied on for the exemption, empowers the Commission to exempt a consumer for supplying electricity supplied to it only by the licensee. The Commission said the provision did not apply to electricity received from a solar captive generating plant or through open access. This distinction led the Commission to question how it could identify electricity received from different sources separately.
Following the April 7 hearing, the Commission directed Jubilant Pharmova to file an amendment application revising its prayers before further proceedings. The Commission held hearings on May 12 and July 23, but the company neither filed a revised petition nor sought to amend its prayers. On July 23, the Commission gave the petitioner a final opportunity to do so.
At the hearing on September 22, Jubilant Pharmova acknowledged that it had still not made a submission pursuant to the Commission&#8217;s April 8 order and requested another opportunity. UPERC declined the request.
The company&#8217;s counsel then sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh. UPERC granted the request and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Recently, UPERC <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/uperc-rejects-plea-for-uncapped-banking-of-power-from-captive-solar-project" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> a petition by a solar manufacturer, seeking unrestricted banking and drawal of power from its proposed captive solar project and 100% exemptions from banking, wheeling, and transmission charges.
Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time <a href="https://mercomindia.com/product/mercoms-renewable-energy-regulatory-updates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regulatory Updates</a> to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.

UPERC Allows Captive Solar Power Consumer to Withdraw Power Supply Petition

The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=1&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjA_q--oJXYAhWI2YMKHfUxA-EQFggpMAA&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercindia.org.in%2F&amp;usg=AOvVaw1c9yQPF60gFUZwOCtJu29q" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MERC</a>) in its latest order has clarified that open access consumers can avail open access throughout the year and are entitled for adjustment of the banked units if it sources power from the same generator.
The commission was responding to a petition filed by Krishna Valley Power Pvt. Ltd. (KVPPL) and Sahyadri Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (SREPL) against the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) for the non-compliance of an earlier order passed on January 15, 2018.
KVPPL and SREPL in the petition had requested the refund of open access charges deducted on surplus units that had lapsed after November 2016.
KVPPL and SREPL have installed small hydro projects at two separate sites near Shahapur in district Thane. Both had sought Short Term Open Access (STOA) during the period April 1, 2016 to November 30, 2016 for the sale of energy to the third-party consumers; Derive Trading Pvt Ltd and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. While KVPPL was supplying power to Derive Trading, SREPL was supplying power to Glenmark Pharmaceuticals.
MSEDCL in the letter informed the petitioners that due to discontinuation of open access for the month of December 2016, the banked units cannot be carried forward to the next billing cycle.
It further added that petitioners did not apply for STOA for the month of December 2016 for Derive Trading and Glenmark. STOA was again applied for the month of January 2017 onwards in case of Derive Trading and for February 2017 in case of Glenmark.
However, for the month of February 2017, instead of KVPPL, SREPL supplied power to Derive Trading (Generator changed) and for the month of January 2017, SREPL supplied power to Derive Trading instead of Glenmark (Consumer changed).
The commission in its earlier order had directed MSEDCL to adjust the banked energy of the petitioners in consumer bills from January 2017 onwards, if the same consumer has sought open access from same generator.
The commission has now made it clear that when a consumer discontinues open access for a certain period but resumes it in the same financial year with same generator then the consumer will be given banking adjustments.
Therefore, the banking adjustments were given to Glenmark as per the commission’s order. Whereas, Derive Trading had not availed open access in December 2016 and came back to it in January 2017 and February 2017 but with a different generator. Therefore, banking adjustments were not given to the said consumer.
The Commission said –
<blockquote>The Commission observes that Derive Trading had availed open access from April 2016 to November 2016 by sourcing power from KVPPL. Thereafter, after a break in December 2016, Derive Trading again had availed open access, but this time from SREPL instead of KVPPL. In case, if it would had sourced the power from the same generator KVPPL then it would had been entitled for the adjustment of the banked units.</blockquote>
The commission felt that charges alleged by petitioners against the MSEDCL for non-compliance of its earlier order does not hold.
<a href="https://mercomindia.com/merc-renewable-policy-maharashtra-no-solar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Recently,</a> MERC directed Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd (AEML) not to pay any benefits to open access solar projects aggregating 6 MW. These projects were developed under the Renewable Energy Policy 2008 and were notified by the government of Maharashtra. According to the state’s policy, benefits were to accrue to renewable energy projects.
&nbsp;

Open Access Banked Units Can be Adjusted If Power Sourced from Same Generator: MERC

generator

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS