The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) rejected an appeal by a rooftop solar consumer seeking enforcement of a tariff of ₹9.56 (~$0.11)/kWh for a rooftop solar system, as per an initial Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed on December 10, 2015. Instead, the Tribunal upheld a revised tariff of ₹5.67 (~$0.067)/kWh, as outlined in a supplementary PPA executed on March 21, 2017.

The Tribunal said the petitioner had neither challenged the supplementary agreement nor demonstrated that it was signed under protest, rendering the revised terms binding.

Background

The Government of Karnataka implemented the Karnataka Solar Policy (2014–2021) to promote renewable energy, encouraging grid-connected rooftop solar projects. Under this initiative, electricity companies invited applications for solar installations.

The petitioner, M.R. Shivaswamy applied for a 490 kWp rooftop solar system and signed a PPA with Mangalore Electricity Supply Company (MESCOM) on December 10, 2015, at a tariff of ₹9.56 (~$0.11)/kWh.

Although the solar system was completed on June 3, 2016, its commissioning was delayed due to pending approvals from the Chief Electrical Inspector. MESCOM later informed the petitioner that, as per a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) order dated May 2, 2016, the applicable tariff had been revised to ₹5.67 (~$0.067)/kWh due to delays in commissioning the project.

The petitioner argued that the PPA did not specify a commissioning timeline, and the MESCOM guidelines only required submitting a work completion report within 180 days—a condition the petitioner had met. He noted that the delays in obtaining approvals from the Chief Electrical Inspector were beyond the petitioner’s control and qualified as a force majeure event.

The petitioner claimed that the tariff revision was unfair, particularly as MESCOM acknowledged the delays were caused by factors outside the petitioner’s influence.

MESCOM argued that the installation approval letter stipulated a 180-day deadline for commissioning the system. Any failure to meet this timeline, regardless of external circumstances, triggered the application of the revised tariff as per the May 2016 KERC order. MESCOM noted that the petitioner had signed a supplementary PPA in March 2017, which was binding and precluded any claim to the original tariff.

Tribunal’s Analysis

The Tribunal observed that the MESCOM guidelines required submitting a work completion report within 180 days. Still, the installation approval letter also imposed an additional condition to commission the system within the same period. This additional requirement, imposed unilaterally and without the petitioner’s explicit consent, conflicted with the terms of the PPA.

The Tribunal acknowledged the petitioner’s claim that delays in receiving approvals from the Chief Electrical Inspector constituted a force majeure event, as they were beyond the petitioner’s control.

However, despite these considerations, the Tribunal noted that the petitioner voluntarily signed a supplementary PPA in March 2017, agreeing to the revised tariff of ₹5.67 (~$0.067)/kWh. The petitioner did not contest this agreement or provide evidence that it was signed under protest.

Considering these facts, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the supplementary PPA legally bound the petitioner. Consequently, no relief could be granted, as the petitioner failed to challenge the revised agreement effectively.

In June, APTEL quashed a Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission order that rejected Photon Suryakiran’s petition asking for Bangalore Electricity Supply Company) not to reduce the tariff of the delayed solar project from ₹7.05 (~$0.084)/kWh to ₹6.51 (~$0.078)/kWh.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.