GERC Reserves Order On Solar Dispute Under Suryashakti Kisan Yojna Scheme In Gujarat

The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) has reserved its decision on whether it has the authority to hear a dispute related to the implementation of the Suryashakti Kisan Yojna (SKY Scheme), a solar initiative designed to support farmers. The matter was brought before the Commission by the President of the SKY Scheme Committee of the Trambovad Feeder, who has alleged that state power distribution companies (DISCOMs), including Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited (MGVCL), failed to comply with earlier directions and misrepresented the financial structure of the scheme.

During the hearing, Advocate R.N. Purohit, representing the farmers, argued that the SKY Scheme was originally promoted with a funding model under which 30% of the project cost would be covered through a central government subsidy, 65% through a state government subsidy, and only 5% would be contributed by farmers. However, according to the petitioner, the state’s contribution was not provided as a true subsidy. Instead, it was treated as a loan that is being recovered through Evaluation-based Incentives (EBI) earned by farmers by exporting surplus solar electricity to the grid. The farmers contend that recovering the amount in this manner contradicts the very concept of a subsidy.

The petitioner also raised concerns about the performance and maintenance of the solar installations. It was alleged that the agencies responsible for installing and maintaining the systems failed to ensure proper operation, resulting in a Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) of only 13% to 15%, significantly lower than the expected 18.3%. Because of the reduced electricity generation, farmers earned less income from selling surplus power while loan deductions continued, creating financial difficulties.

Additional issues highlighted during the hearing included the installation of solar systems with a lower capacity than promised, such as 12 kW instead of the approved 12.5 kW, and long delays in repairing damaged solar panels. The petitioner argued that these issues involve structural and contractual aspects of the scheme and therefore fall within GERC’s jurisdiction.

Representing the DISCOMs, Advocate Harsha Rao challenged the maintainability of the petition. The respondents argued that Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, gives GERC the authority to resolve disputes only between licensees and generating companies. They maintained that although the farmers generate electricity through rooftop solar systems, they remain consumers under the law. Therefore, any grievances should be addressed before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum (CGRF) or the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42 of the Electricity Act.

The DISCOMs further submitted that the petitioner had already approached the CGRF on the same issues and that filing the matter before GERC was an attempt to bypass the statutory grievance mechanism. They also stated that the subsidy arrangement, loan recovery process, and other financial terms had been clearly explained in the Power Purchase Agreements and tripartite agreements signed by the participants.

After hearing both sides in a hybrid proceeding, the GERC bench, comprising Chairman Pankaj Joshi and Member Hiren Shah, directed the respondents to provide a copy of their written submissions to the petitioner within three days. The petitioner has been given two weeks to file a rejoinder. The Commission has reserved its order and will decide whether the petition is maintainable before proceeding further with the case.