1. Commercial Issues for 73 nd OCC TN opened LC for Rs.5Crs for UI payment delays during 2011-12. TN to enhance the LC amount to 32.84Crs as per their liability TN default in UI /Reactive energy charges As on 05.07.12, TN yet to pay Rs.20Crs towards UI charges and Rs.1.2Crs towards Reactive energy charges. Entities yet to open LC for delayed UI payment Kudamkulam (KNPP) Rs.62 Lakhs NLC II Expansion Rs.10 Lakhs Meenakshi (MEPL) Rs.7 Lakhs Simhapuri (SEPL) Rs.9.18 Lakhs

2. DELAY IN WEEKLY SEM DATA RECEIPT DURING JUNE 2012 The status of weekly SEM data receipt as on every Monday 1700hrs and Tuesday 1200hrs is available at SRLDC website : srldc.org\commercial\weekly sem data Stations and SLDCs may pl check this and ensure timely data transmission AndhrapradeshKarnatakaTamilnadu Stations No.of occassions Stations No.of occassions Stations No.of occassions KSTPS2Nelamangala1Alamathy1 Tandur1BTPS1 JSW2 Sedam 1 Kadra 1 Kodasalli 1 Goa NPC POWERGRID Xeldam1 Kaiga 1Hiriyur2 Kudamkulam 1Mysore1 Pondicherry1 NLCNTECLArasur1 NLC II Expn 1 Vallur 1Cochin1

3. Time drift report receipt status: ANDHRAPRADESH: Not sending KARNATAKA: Nelamangala & Raichur only sending. TAMILNADU: Only Gumdipundi, Hosur,Kuzhithurai sending. PUDUCHERRY: Villianur not regular ISGS STATIONS: MAPS : Not sending NLC Expn I : Not regular

4. Standby SEM installation pending LocationElement No.of SEMs Narenda 400kV Kaiga line I1 400kV Kaiga line II1 Hoody 400kV Kolar line I 1 400kV Kolar line II 1 400kV Gooty line 1

5. PoC computation for October 2012 to March 2013 As per CERC order dt 10.02.12, PoC rates to be computed on Half Yearly basis for the year 2012-13. 5 th Validation committee for the FY 2012-13 held on 27.06.12 Final computation expected in July 2 nd week Last Validation committee meeting expected by July end

6. Mock Exercise on RRF Task Force on RRF constituted by MNRE for facilitating implementation of RRF mechanism 1 st meeting 10th April 2012 2 nd meeting 24 th April 2012 3 rd meeting - 21 st May 2012 4 th meeting held on 12-06-12 5 th meeting held on 02-07-12 Draft report of Task Force on RRF submitted to MNRE

7. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force Recommendations Issue-1 Issue-1: Criteria for identifying candidates for RRF 1.It is recommended that ‘ Pooling Station ’ be considered as basic ‘ building block ’ in respect of wind/solar generating stations for the purpose of scheduling, metering and energy accounting 2.The term ‘ Connection Point ’ and ‘ Pooling Station ’ arrangements may be defined clearly under IEGC/RRF Procedures in line with definition and types of arrangements as suggested at Para 3.3 of the Report. 3.Implementation of scheduling requirement and participation in RRF mechanism may be made mandatory for all Wind/Solar projects connected to Pooling Stations that are commissioned on or after 03.05.2010.

8. Issue-2: Evolving an alternate system of settling imbalances and RRF accounting irrespective of contract rate 1.It is recommended that ‘ Schedule Energy ’ instead of ‘ Actual Energy ’ based accounting treatment and commercial settlement mechanism will have to be followed for RRF eligible entities, similar to conventional generation projects with UI computations at Pooling Station end together with RRF Overlay account to determine the amount of hand-holding required for RE Generators (to provide immunity from UI mechanism for deviation of +/- 30% of schedules in case of wind and for deviation of +/-100% of schedules in case of solar). 2.Above accounting treatment for the purpose of RRF mechanism would be compatible with existing regional energy accounting framework However,the issue of ‘ Reference Rate ’ and proper accounting of ‘ green attributes ’ will have to be addressed. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force RecommendationsIssue-2

9. Issue-3: Roles and responsib ilities of various entities as well as institutio nal arrangem ents required for smooth implemen tation of the RRF mechanis m. 1.It is suggested that all State Utilities undertake urgent measures for installation of interface meters at Interconnection Points and at Pooling Station end and to account for energy injections and deviations at intra-State boundaries. 2.It is suggested that suitable Institutional Arrangement/ Registry for tracking/collating information regarding RE installations on regular basis needs to be put in place as highlighted under Para 3.2 and format for information tracking by Registry is provided at Annexure-8 3.The Task Force recognizes that the primary responsibility for scheduling and variability rests with the Generators. However, in order to facilitate implementation of the scheduling, accounting and de-pooling arrangements, a separate Institutional Entity needs to be recognised under regulatory framework for co-ordination and undertaking commercial settlement on behalf of Generators. 4.Task Force suggests that either the franchisee model or the Qualified Scheduling Entity model (as elaborated under Para 5.15) could be followed but the ground rules for the same should be laid out by the regulator. 5.Further, roles and responsibilities of various entities (RE Generator/ SLDC/ RLDC/ NLDC/ RPC/ Qualified Scheduling Entity) for the purpose of RRF Implementation may be clearly specified (as suggested under Para 5.17) through Regulations/Order. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force Recommendations Issue-3

10. Issue-4:Minimizing volatility in earnings due to the new mechanism 1.It is recommended that references to ‘ Contract Rate ’ under RRF procedures may be substituted with ‘ Reference Rate ’ either uniform Reference Rate at national level or State specific Reference Rate. 2.Various options for Reference Rate were deliberated. However, it is preferred that Reference Rate may be determined upon analysis of outcome of mock exercise that would have minimal impact on volatility of earnings due to new mechanism. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force Recommendations Issue-4

11. Issue-5: Ensuring sanctity of ‘ green energy ’ accounting. 1.The concerns of compliance of RPO framework on account of ‘ schedule energy ’ based accounting may be addressed through REC mechanism, however, the same would require modification to existing REC framework, which needs to explored further. 2.In any case, RPO is to be fulfilled in energy terms and annual basis as against RRF implementation which needs to be accounted in MW terms and on time-block basis. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force Recommendations Issue-5

12. Issue-6: Residual issues raised by stakeholders - Centralised v/s De- centralised forecasts for RE power - Handling backing down of RE power due to transmission constraints 1.Task Force opines that hybrid approach involving de- centralized forecasting as well as centralized forecasts is necessary to facilitate large scale grid integration of variable RE power.The De-centralised forecasting approach is necessary for commercial reasons and for which the developer is responsible while the centralized forecast approach is essentially for system security for which all the Load DespatchCentres (LDCs) are responsible. 2.As regards backing down of RE power due to transmission constraints, the Task Force observes that once the generators came under the scheduling process, there would be transparency and it would be possible to clearly quantify the extent of backing down due to different reasons and suitable mechanisms could be put into place. Key Implementation Issues & Task Force Recommendations Issue-6