Recently, CERC proposed the 5th amendment to REC regulations. The gist of proposed changes is:

  • Captive generators and portion of power for self-consumption will no longer be eligible for RECs
  • If an open access (OA) project avails concessional wheeling, banking or cross-subsidy benefits, it will not be eligible for RECs

These changes have been proposed in the context of an REC market that faces significant oversupply. As on June 30 2015, RECs worth 2,650 crore remain unsold, and clearing percentages in many months are well below 5%. In most months, more RECs have been issued than redeemed, further aggravating the problem of over-supply.

In the explanatory memorandum, CERC has elaborated on the thinking behind the proposed amendment. The memo states:

Lack of RPO enforcement has been one of the major reasons for the high level of unsold REC inventory. However, it is also important to analyze the supply side aspects and understand whether the right beneficiaries (as was envisaged while introducing REC framework) are participating and able to compete in the REC market. It remains a fact that a major portion of the REC inventory is contributed by the CGPs. Also, developers under third party model are able to leverage the concessional benefits while participating under 
REC framework.” (Emphasis added)


“Around 51% of the projects under the CGP route were commissioned before the first notification (14 January 2010) of the REC Regulation. These projects must have computed their financial viability without the REC benefit.” 

The proposed changes will have far-reaching implications on the REC market structure. As per data provided in the Explanatory Memo approximately 41% of the capacity (under captive generation) will be completely excluded from RECs markets, and a significant portion of OA capacity (19% of total) will be impacted.

Analysis by REConnect Energy suggests that annual RECs generation may fall from 96.25 lakhs in FY 14-15 to 54.30 lakhs per year after the amendment.

Table: Annual RECs Issuance

 Sources: REC registry website; REConnect analysis

Note: Annualized redemption is assumed to be 2X times redemption is FY 14-15. Increase is expected due to SC order and Electricity Act amendment.

Impact on Open Access (OA) projects:

The proposed amendment is contrary to the provision in the draft Electricity Amendment bill (EA Bill) in the Parliament, and of many state policies.

The EA Bill says:

Sec 42(4):

“The open access consumers procuring electricity from renewable energy sources shall not be required to pay the surcharge for open access for such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government”

 Surcharge in the above context means cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS).

 If the EA Bill is to be passed by the Parliament, the impact of the 5th Amendment will be to make all RE projects in OA ineligible for RECs. This will discourage OA in renewable energy – something that goes against one of the principle objectives of the EA and of CERC (to encourage market development in the electricity sector).

Further, many states allow concessional cross-subsidy or exemption from cross-subsidy as a way to promote open access in RE projects. For example, Rajasthan’s solar policy exempts solar projects under open access from CSS. Similar provisions exist in many state policies.

Renewable Energy projects will not be viable under open access without concessional CSS provided by the states. States realize this – and therefore the concession exists in the first place. If RECs benefits were to be denied to such projects, it’s the equivalent of giving from one hand and taking from another. The net result of the amendment will be to completely finish-off the OA market for RE power – this is something that will be contrary to one of the fundamental pillars of the Electricity Act.

Further, in many existing OA transactions, prices are likely to have been negotiated knowing the fact that the RE project will get revenue from RECs. Such projects may suddenly become unviable. In many states with low tariffs, such projects will not remain competitive without RECs and therefore risk becoming NPAs.

Impact on Captive Generating (CGP) projects:

As mentioned above, the impact on CGPs of the amendment will be drastic. All CGP’s will be considered ineligible for RECs benefits. However, in proposing the amendment, CERC has failed to consider the case of two categories of projects–

(1)   CGPs set up specifically to meet RPO requirements, and

(2)   CGPs under the group captive mechanism

Since CERC amended the RECs regulation to allow self-retention of RECs by obligated entities, many companies have set up CGPs in one state and meet their obligation in other states through retention of RECs. This approach has multiple benefits – it has encouraged setting up of new RE capacity, and also helps the obligated entity manage its compliance costs.

The proposed amendment will take away this benefit to obligated entities. This is erroneous on three counts – (a) the CGP is likely to have been setup by the obligated entity to meet RPO across units. Such an investment, made in good faith keeping in mind existing regulations, may become redundant after the regulation, (b) it will discourage setting up of large new RE capacities as obligated entities will not be able to meet RPO in states that have low RE resources, and (c) it will take away a valid means for obligated entities to comply with RPO, leaving them with very limited options – buying of RECs.

Group captive projects, on the other hand, also face difficulties due to the amendment. In many group captive projects, the primary investment is made by an investor, and power prices are determined through negotiations. Further, such projects tend to be long term in nature as they involve an element of equity investment by the consumer. A sudden change in RECs eligibility is likely to make such projects unviable, and result in severe losses to investors who set up projects assuming a stable RECs regime.

Overall, we believe that while CERC’s intent to correct the supply imbalance in the RECs market is needed, the unintended consequence of the 5th amendment on open access and captive projects will be harmful to the growth of the renewable energy industry.