| Work Detail |
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) has filed a petition seeking compensation from Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) due to delays in the scheduled commercial operation dates (SCoD) for wind power projects. MSEDCL claims that the delays have resulted in a shortfall in the supply of power as per the Power Sale Agreement (PSA), impacting its ability to meet renewable energy purchase obligations (RPO). SECI, in its response, raised objections regarding the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) to hear the case, arguing that the jurisdiction lies with the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) due to the inter-state nature of the transactions.
MSEDCL’s petition refers to several significant events, including the issuance of the Request for Selection (RfS) by SECI in 2018 for wind power projects, the signing of a PSA between SECI and MSEDCL, and the subsequent delays in the commissioning of the wind power projects. MSEDCL has highlighted that, under the PSA, SECI was expected to deliver wind power starting from February 2020, but the delays in the completion of projects by SECI led to a shortfall in the power supply, causing financial strain for MSEDCL. The compensation sought by MSEDCL is based on the failure to meet the agreed-upon power supply, with SECI attributing the delays to factors such as changes in land policy, delays in approvals, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
SECI, on the other hand, has argued that the appropriate jurisdiction for the dispute lies with CERC, given that the projects are located in Gujarat and involve inter-state transactions. SECI refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Energy Watchdog case, which established that when electricity generation and supply occur across multiple states, the Central Commission holds jurisdiction. The dispute revolves around whether MERC or CERC should adjudicate the case, with the outcome determining the next steps in resolving the compensation claim.
The Commission’s decision is focused on determining jurisdiction, with further consideration of the merits of the case to follow based on this ruling. The legal framework surrounding the dispute involves the interpretation of the Electricity Act, 2003, and relevant case law regarding inter-state and intra-state electricity transactions. The resolution of this jurisdictional issue will set the stage for the potential adjudication of compensation and other contractual matters between MSEDCL and SECI. |
