Comments
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has accepted a plea of the National Solar Energy Federation of India (NSEFI) that it is wrong on the part of Tamil Nadu to not pay solar energy companies for energy supplied from higher capacity utilisation of the solar plants.
Earlier, Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC), had ruled that the quantum of power for which payment is made to solar power generators is limited to the solar plant’s capacity utilisation of 19 per cent, and not beyond it.
TNERC had held that “a contract cannot cause loss to the other party.” The regulator had observed that Tangedco, the State electricity generation and supply utility, pays more for solar power in order to promote renewable energy. “If the petitioners (solar companies) are to seek for payment for entire energy generated at higher CUFs for having maximized the output with optimised design of the solar power plant as put forth by the petitioners, they may have to settle for lesser tariffs for the entire energy generated with respect to the contracted capacity undergoing a re-determination of tariff as per statutory provisions.”
Unjust and unreasonable
However, APTEL has ruled in favour of the solar companies, on the grounds that there was no provision to accommodate Tangedco’s stand in the energy purchase agreements with the solar companies. In its verdict, delivered on November 28, the Tribunal said: “We decline to accept the argument put forth by Tangedco as it could not place before us any reasonable reply to the argument of the Appellants that none of the relevant agreements signed have any provision putting a cap on the generation beyond a capacity utilisation factor of 19 per cent inter-alia no payment shall be made for energy generated beyond 19 per cent capacity utilisation factor.”
APTEL’s Member-Technical, Sandesh Kumar Sharma, also notes in his verdict that the Tribunal “could not find any substantive provision under the relevant Tariff Orders on the basis which restrictions on the payments for generation beyond CUF of 19 per cent can be made.”
The Tribunal found “the arguments made by Tangedco and also as observed by the State Commission in rejecting the submissions of the Appellants in the aforesaid Petitions as unjust and unreasonable.”
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.