The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (MPERC) has dismissed a review petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited (MPPMCL) seeking relief against an order issued by the commission for a case between MPPMCL and Adani Green Energy. MPPMCL is the holding company for all the DISCOMs of Madhya Pradesh.
In 2017, Adani Green Energy had approached MPERC to provide relief in case of delay in payment of dues by MPPMCL. Back then, the MPERC had ordered MPPMCL to make the payment of outstanding invoices to Adani Green Energy according to the provisions of the power purchase agreement (PPA) and to make suitable arrangements so that in future such delays are avoided.
However, MPPMCL did not comply with this order. As a result, Adani Green Energy again approached the MPERC to seek guidance on the case. The commission was of the view that in spite of the order to make the payment to Adani Green Energy according to the terms of the PPA, the payments were not made which was clear non-compliance of the commission’s order by MPPMCL. MPPMCL had stated that the payment to Adani Green against the invoices was not disputed, but due to liquidity crunch, the payments were delayed. On the other hand, MPPMCL had also stated that it was making payments to other companies following amicable settlement of waiving delayed payment surcharge. As a result, the commission was of the view that by not paying to Adani Green, MPPMCL was discriminating only because Adani Green was not agreeing for waiver of delayed payment surcharge demanded by MPPMCL, while, the PPA does not provide for such waiver.
Then the MPERC had also stated that its order cannot be read as a direction for non-payment of bills the life of PPA, as being contended by MPPMCL. The commission had directed MPPMCL to pay all the legitimate dues in terms of PPA within 45 days of the order dated July 29, 2017. The MPERC had also levied a fine of ₹100,000 (~$1425.74) payable within 45 days of the order.
Later, the MPPMCL had filed the review petition seeking relief.
While examining the review petition filed by MPPMCL, the state commission observed that it could not produce any new and important matter or evidence for consideration of the commission. MPPMCL could not establish either any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason. MPPMCL could not show any additional matter or evidence which was not within MPERC’s knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the MPERC earlier.
The commission opined that as there was no basis on which to review the previous order and that MPPMCL must pay the dues to Adani Green Energy.
Recently, the MPERC dismissed two petitions filed by the owners of bagasse-based cogeneration projects against the imposition of cross subsidy surcharge for self-consumption of power.
Image credit: Vikram Solar