Electric Vehicle GST reduced to 5%

GST rate on all Electric Vehicles reduced from 12% to 5% and of charger or charging stations for EVs from 18% to 5%

Hiring of electric buses by local authorities exempted from GST

Changes in GST rates shall be effective from 1st August, 2019

Posted On: 27 JUL 2019 12:59PM by PIB Delhi

The 36th GST Council Meeting was held here today Via Video Conference under the chairmanship of Union Finance & Corporate Affairs Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman. The meeting was also attended by Union Minister of State for Finance & Corporate Affairs Shri Anurag Thakur besides Revenue Secretary Shri Ajay Bhushan Pandey and other senior officials of the Ministry of Finance. The Council has recommended the following:

A. GST rate related changes on supply of goods and services

  1. The GST rate on all electric vehicles be reduced from 12% to 5%.
  2. The GST rate on charger or charging stations for Electric vehicles be reduced from18% to 5%.
  3. Hiring of electric buses (of carrying capacity of more than 12 passengers) by localauthorities be exempted from GST.
  4. These changes shall become effective from 1st August, 2019.

B. ChangesinGSTlaw:

  1. Last date for filing of intimation, in FORM GST CMP-02, for availing the option of payment of tax under notification No. 2/2019-Central Tax (Rate) dated 07.03.2019 (by exclusive supplier of services), to be extended from 31.07.2019 to 30.09.2019.
  2. The last date for furnishing statement containing the details of the self-assessed tax in FORM GST CMP-08 for the quarter April, 2019 to June, 2019 (by taxpayers under

page1image58544448 page1image58541760 page1image58547904 page1image58553472 page1image38833216

composition scheme), to be extended from 31.07.2019 to 31.08.2019.

Posted in Government, GST, India, Taxes | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

DRAFT REPORT ON OPTIMAL GENERATION CAPACITY MIX FOR 2029-30

Executive Summary

The world today is witnessing several kinds of technological disruptions in different sectors. One of the likely disruption can be replacement of thermal based generation with RE generation being complimented with energy storage technology. This has been possible with the downward trend of cost of solar panels and newer technology options like battery energy storage systems.

In fact, the reduction in cost projections is very aggressive for battery energy storage technology so as to render them financially viable. In this context, planning for optimal generation capacity mix gains tremendous importance so as the future generation capacity mix will be cost effective as well as environmental friendly. To achieve the mix, a horizon of 10-12 years is sufficient to gear up the systems and policies in the right direction. The study year 2029-30 has been considered keeping this in perspective.

Optimal generation capacity mix is a study primarily aimed at finding out the least cost optimal generation capacity mix, which may be required to meet the peak electricity demand and electrical energy requirement of the year 2029-30 as per 19th Electric Power Survey. The study minimizes the total system cost of generation including the cost of anticipated future investments while fulfilling all the technical constraints.

The base year of the study has been considered as 2021-22. The installed capacity projected in the National Electricity Plan (NEP) has been taken as input to find out the requirement of future generation capacity mix to be built up till 2029-30. The technical and financial parameters of different generation technologies have been considered as per National Electricity Plan.

The short term studies to assess the economic hourly generation dispatch and adequacy of the capacity mix obtained from long term generation planning studies for critical days of the year 2029-30 have also been carried out. All the technical/operational characteristics of each individual generating unit have been adhered to arrive at the adequacy of the generation capacity mix at least production cost.

Due to the technical/operational constraints, the generation from RE sources may not be fully absorbed in the system. The study has also been carried out to assess the RE absorption by reducing presently stipulated technical minimum load of coal based plants.

Sensitivity analysis for contingency scenarios is also carried out by reducing available energy from RE sources and hydro power plants to test the system resilience. Impact on CO2 emissions due to part load efficiency loss of coal based power plants has also been studied.The study is based on the assumption of a single demand node for the country and does not consider transmission lines in optimization.

Click here for the report DRAFT REPORT ON OPTIMAL GENERATION CAPACITY MIX 2029-30

2. Objective of the Study

To find out the optimal generation capacity mix to meet the projected peak electricity demand and electrical energy requirement in the year 2029-30 considering possible/feasible technology options, intermittency associated with Renewable energy sources and constraints if any, etc.

Optimum generation mix study is an optimization problem for generation expansion planning, in which the objective function is to minimize:

  1. The costs associated with operation of the existing and committed (planned and under construction) generating stations.
  2. The capital cost and operating cost of new generating stations required for meeting peak electricity demand and electrical energy requirement while satisfying different constraints in the system such as:
    •  Fuel availability constraints.
    •  Technical operational constraints viz. minimum technical load of

      thermal units, ramp rates, startup and shut down time etc.

    •  Financial implications arising out of startup cost, fuel

      transportation cost etc.

    •  Intermittency associated with renewable energy generation.

      Technologies/Fuel options available for power generation considered in the study are:

  •  Conventional Sources – Coal and Lignite, Hydro including Pumped Storage, Nuclear, Natural gas.
  •  New & Renewable Energy Sources- Solar, Wind, Biomass, Small Hydro, etc.
  •  New Technologies – Grid scale battery energy storage systems.
Posted in Energy Storage, Government, Grid Storage, India | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UPERC (Captive and Renewable Energy Generating Plants) Regulations, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as CRE Regulations, 2019).

These Regulations shall apply to:

All the Generating Stations based on Captive generation, renewable sources of generation and co-generation, existing prior to 01.04.2019 in the State of Uttar Pradesh as on the date of notification of these Regulations.

Generation based on Captive generation, renewable sources of generation and co-generation, captive consumption and sale of electricity from such captive plants or plants based on RE sources, to all distribution licensees within Uttar Pradesh or through Open access to a third party.

Provided that in case of Wind, Mini/ Micro hydro projects, Small Hydro projects, Biomass power, Non-fossil fuel based generation and Cogeneration projects, Solar PV projects and Wind based power plants these Regulations shall apply subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria specified in these Regulations.

  1. The provisions of Availability Based Tariff (hereinafter referred to as ‘ABT’) in respect to functions, duties and obligations, as applicable to conventional generation plants shall apply to these Generating Plants also, unless provided otherwise in some other Regulations.
  2. For Generating Plants commissioned on or after 1.04.2009, where the Generating Plant/Company has adopted Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the proceeds of carbon credit from approved CDM project shall be shared in the following manner, namely:
    1. 100% of gross proceeds on account of CDM shall be retained by the project developer during the first year of commercial operation of the Generating plants.
    2. During the second year of commercial operation, the share of the procurer shall be 10% which shall progressively increase by 10% every year till it reaches 50%, where-after the proceeds shall be shared in equal proportion, by the Generating Company and the procurer.

Click here for the doc CRE Regulations 2019_Final

Posted in Policy, Regulations and Procedures, Renewables, Solar Policy, Solar PV, Uttar Pradesh | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UPERC issues CRE Regulations Sept 2019

UPERC issued CRE Regulations today, with key features as

1. DSM shall be implemented for all RE except MSW and SHP. For solar as per UPERC (Forecasting, Scheduling and Settlement) Regulations 2018

2. Waivers of 50% of wheeling and transmission Charges for Captive and Third Party use. 100% waiver on transmission for Interstate sale. Waiver as per UP Solar Policy 2017, unless amended, policy allows benefit till useful life of plant as no sunset date specified for waivers unlike ED for which it is 10 yrs.

3. 100% Exemption of state CSS for Interstate sale of power for Captive/Third Party use

4. 15 min energy accounting of all RE plants and should be ABT compliant

5. 100% Banking of Energy for RE except for SHP and MSW and shall be as per technical feasibility specified by DISCOM

6. Withdrawal of banked energy as per TOD system only. No interchange of peak-offpeak banked energy

7. Banking as well withdrawal of banked energy shall be subject to day ahead Scheduling

8. Banked energy utilisation allowed upto next two quarters from the quarter in which energy is banked.

9. Unutilised banked energy to be treated as sale of electricity to discom @2 Rs/unit

10. Banking charges @6% of banked energy and shall be in Kind

UP CRE Regulations 2019_Final

Posted in India, Renewables, Solar PV, Uttar Pradesh | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Low Tariffs Pushing Developers to Cut Costs and Quality of Solar Mounting Structures

With limited ability to reduce prices of modules and inverters, developers are trying to cut costs on other equipment

Low Tariffs Pushing Developers to Cut Costs and Quality of Solar Mounting Structures

Module mounting structures are the backbone of any solar photovoltaic (PV) energy project. Good quality mounting structures on a ground-mounted or rooftop solar project not only helps maintain the optimum generation; these structures need to withstand the weight of solar panels, high wind speeds, and varying temperatures. Lately, aggressive bidding has taken a toll on mounting structures as the quality is being sacrificed to cut costs, which could have a negative consequence on hundreds of solar projects that are supposed to last 25 years in any weather.

This year, there were numerous cases in Odisha where cyclone Fani damaged rooftop as well as ground-mounted solar projects. Similar incidents have been reported from Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan. Unlike other equipment deployed in solar energy projects such as modules, inverters, and cables, module mounting structures require customization based on the topography of the land, module design, and the climate of the region. According to mounting structure suppliers, these account for anywhere between 3% to 5% of the total cost of a solar project and are a crucial part of the balance of system (BoS).

“There is an industry-wide concern that several` companies are compromising on module quality, which could lead to the collapse of structures and turn the perception of consumers and investors negative about solar project investments. Module suppliers are blaming the pressure from EPCs and developers who are in turn pointing fingers at the government agencies who they say are forcing their hand with low tariff caps and low bid matching,” said Raj Prabhu, CEO of Mercom Capital group.

Mounting structures are also expected to have excellent electrical and thermal conductivity and should be available in different thickness to carry a heavy load, apart from being corrosion-resistant and durable, considering the long life of solar projects.

An executive at a large solar energy developer said, “There are many challenges when installing solar projects. Land remains a major constraint for developers and structure manufacturers because mounting structure designs depend on the type of soil. For ground-mount projects, foundation mounting structures are common, but this depends on local climate, module size, and array tilt, among other factors. Anchor systems and driven beams are selected to fit each solar project. Additionally, the efficiency of solar projects depends on the mounting structures as ground-mount systems provide better tilt than rooftop projects. Hence, the choice of the right mounting structures is crucial for solar projects.”

However, due to aggressive bidding in the industry, mounting structure suppliers are feeling the heat. Through interaction with stakeholders in the industry, Mercom found that some developers are cutting corners on these structures. For example – the standard thickness for the structure used to range between 2mm or 3mm, but mounting suppliers are now being pushed to make structures with less than 1 mm thickness having 350 (MPa) tensile strength.

Moreover, EPC contractors are also finding it difficult to maintain the quality of the solar projects due to the corrosion of structures which is affecting power generation – a result of cutting cost while compromising on quality.

Talking about the increasing pressure on mounting structure suppliers to reduce costs, Basant Jain, CEO of Mahindra Susten commented, “The current trend of constantly falling tariffs has brought about a price war in BoS costs. Since the mounting structure is a major part of the BoS, the pressure of reducing the cost is felt to be the highest for these.”

Further, elaborating on the importance of quality mounting structures, Jain said, “In the project design life of 25 years, a structure undergoes many cycles of dynamic loading. The wind being a major reason for the failure of module-mounting structures, it is extremely important to consider all the possible worst-case scenarios in design. Also, being exposed to repeated rainfall and humid weather, poor quality of the material will make it susceptible to accelerated corrosion, thereby not allowing it to serve its complete life.”

Other EPC companies shared similar beliefs about the higher competition among developers leading to degrading quality of solar plants. Aparna Ravikumar, the marketing engineer at Enerparc, a solar EPC company, said “The pressure of quoting low tariff from developers is ultimately resulting in not only quality of BOS but entire plant including modules and inverters. To a certain extent, the price pressure is resulting in some innovative solutions, but the overall impact is that the quality of the plant suffers greatly.”

Diligent design practices and rigorous testing of mounting structures cannot be overlooked. “Design that considers the life of the plant along with the environmental factors and best engineering practices (such as wind speeds, wind tunnel tests, life cycle tests for the components used), usage of new materials with adequate testing, better sourcing, quality monitoring of raw materials – ensuring the right products are used – these can ensure quality mounting structure procurement,” Ravikumar added.

Harshal Akhouri, the co-founder and director of Strolar Mounting System, a mounting structure supplier, said “Since 2008, the Indian steel industry is under pressure due to the falling prices in steel and under very intense competition. To counter this, the steel companies have tried to bring their cost down to match the pricing, and solar is no different. While economies of scale could work in negotiating the price of modules, inverters, and cables by ordering large quantities, you cannot do that in case of mounting systems. Every single project is a different design which makes mass production difficult. To meet the cut-throat competition and the wafer-thin margins, the quality of the steel is compromised. It can be in the form of the grade of steel or thickness or even the coating thickness, which may hurt the long-term durability under tough climatic conditions. A case in point being that of Punjab, Rajasthan, and now Odisha. While you have testing facilities and approval norms for modules, inverters, and cables before they make it to the market, unfortunately, there are no regulatory authorities in place for mounting systems.”

“Large-scale professional developers are relatively more careful in terms of procuring mounting systems and have third-party approval systems well in place, but there are also developers who knowingly use mounting systems of sub-par quality to make margins. One solution to reduce the costs of mounting structure is standardizing the system and streamlining logistics. For one of our larger clients, we have developed standardized mounting system designs which were deployed across various cities in India through warehousing systems. This reduces human resources, timelines, and the cost of implementing the systems,” Akhouri added.

To add to the current issues, an anti-dumping case has been filed against module mounting structure components recently, including aluminum and zinc-coated flat products originating from China, South Korea, and Vietnam.

The National Solar Energy Federation of India (NSEFI) recently wrote to the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) expressing its concerns over the levy of anti-dumping duty on aluminum and zinc-coated flat products.

The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) is soon going to issue its preliminary findings in the matter. According to NSEFI, approximately 49 GW of solar projects are under various stages of development, and in the next 18 months, they would require up to ~1,500,000 tons of aluminum and zinc-coated flat products.

NSEFI has argued that if a duty is levied, solar PV project developers will raise the claims of tariff adjustment citing the ‘Change in Law’ clause. The entire process of negotiation is then likely to take a long time and adversely affect the project pipelines and the construction timelines across the country. If the anti-dumping duties are imposed on mounting structures, it could result in an increase in components costs and put further pressure on projects.

“While mounting suppliers are facing price pressure, which is resulting in compromised quality, the anti-dumping case, if it goes through, could pose supply issues. Unless regulators are careful; this is a perfect storm that can bring down projects if the structures cannot hold up,” added Prabhu.

The solar industry needs to focus on establishing the best practices for testing and certification of mounting structure products before they are deployed. The quality of raw materials used for these structures is also key for durability. The appropriate choice and design of a mounting structure system are imperative for the optimal performance of a solar energy project, especially in the Indian market.

“Unless the industry reacts quickly and self-corrects, we are going to see unnecessary regulations put in place, further burdening the industry. Insurance costs will also go up if mounting structures start to fail,” said Prabhu.

According to Mercom’s India 2019 Solar Market Leaderboard, there were over 60 suppliers of solar mounting structures active in the Indian market at the end of 2018. The top 10 mounting structure suppliers accounted for 65% of the market share, while the other 50 suppliers accounted for the remaining 35%.

Image credit: Pebspennar

Source: Mercom India

Posted in India | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Market Survey Backsheets and Encapsulation 2019

After TaiyangNews published market surveys on backsheets in 2017 and in 2018, this edition includes also an overview on encapsulation products. This way, this survey combines the latest on polymers to protect the interconnected cell circuitry of a solar module.
For this first market survey on backsheets and encapsulation materials, we received responses from 14 companies that provided data for 96 products, of which 80 are backsheet models and 16 are for encapsulation. Thus, the backsheet part has grown strongly compared to the 61 products of last year’s survey with twocompanies providing their data for the first time – China’sLucky Group and Germany’s Bischof + Klein.
The current market of backsheet offers a wide choice of structures using a variety of polymers. A typical backsheet is a 3-layered structure, in which the PET corefilm is sandwiched by two protective layers. Based on thechemistry of the protective layers, the backsheets canbe categorized into two segments – fluoropolymer basedbacksheets, which contain at least one fluoropolymer film to protect the PET, the other category are non- fluoropolymer based backsheets that are free from halogen components.
When it comes to technology shares of backsheets, as in the past fluoropolymers are dominating the module back cover market, with PVDF ahead of PVF (Tedlar), and followed by glass, non-fluoro-based polyester and others. In the encapsulation field it is all about EVA,except for a small share of polyolefins.
The backsheet field continues to be dominated by twocompanies –Cybrid and Jolywood; in the encapsulation field it is one – Hangzhou First.
There have been many trends in recent years tooptimize the backsheet – using alternative polymers,primers or coatings for the outer and inner layers to cut on cost while striving to keep the protection features of the products. But now a company is coming up with a solution to replace the PET core layer with something that they say is cheaper and provides good qualitybut needs less material – a polypropylene basedsolution from a major chemical company. Though such backsheets have been available in the past, that was only as part of a complete backsheet product. Now Borealis is striving to enable the backsheet laminatorcompanies to make their own polypropylene film for thecore layer
While polypropylene for the core is just being introduced, another new backsheet product has reached the stage that leading module manufacturers are starting to usecommercially – and that is transparent backsheets forsolar’s hottest recent development, bifacial modules. So far, every module manufacturer has been using glass for the backside of its bifacial modules, but clear backsheets have some advantages. After DuPont introduced a new generation clear backsheet based on Tedlar last year, the world’s largest module manufacturer JinkoSolar has recently launched a bifacial module using a clear backsheet.
While polymers are competing with glass for the job of being the backsheet of choice, the polymer-based solution can also be tweaked to take over the mainapplication of glass in solar – a module’s front cover.While this idea is not new, there are new products for cell and module technologies to address “light weight” and BIPV applications.
The encapsulation market is much more consolidated than backsheets. The product of choice is EVA, which is supplied by a ‘handful’ of Chinese companies. Here, the major development is to employ on the rear side white EVA instead of a transparent film. This change is expected to improve module power by 1% due to improved optical gains. The only contender to EVA is polyolefin, but so far solely in the field of glass-glass modules, which, however, due to the rise of bifacial modules has been increasing its shares as of recently.
original link
Posted in Renewables | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures – ASCE / SEI 7-05

STANDARD

1 General……………………………………………………………

  1. 1.1  Scope……………………………………………….
  2. 1.2  Definitions …………………………………………….
  3. 1.3  BasicRequirements ………………………………………..
    1. 1.3.1  Strength…………………………………………
    2. 1.3.2  Serviceability……………………………………….
    3. 1.3.3  Self-strainingForces……………………………………
    4. 1.3.4  Analysis…………………………………………
    5. 1.3.5  CounteractingStructuralActions……………………………..
  4. 1.4  GeneralStructuralIntegrity …………………………………….
  5. 1.5  ClassificationofBuildingsandOtherStructures …………………………..
    1. 1.5.1  Nature of Occupancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    2. 1.5.2  Toxic, Highly Toxic, and Explosive Substances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
  6. 1.6  AdditionsandAlterationstoExistingStructures …………………………..
  7. 1.7  LoadTests …………………………………………….
  8. 1.8  ConsensusStandardsandOtherReferencedDocuments ……………………….

. vii. ix

Click here for the full ASCE 7-05

ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for buildings and other Struc

Posted in Solar | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment