| Work Detail |
The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) met on multiple occasions, including January 13, 2025, February 20, 2025, March 26, 2025, and May 7, 2025, to address a case stemming from a previous appeal. The case followed a judgment issued by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) on September 3, 2024. In its ruling, APTEL had found a prior order from the HERC to be incorrect. It directed the HERC to issue a new order approving Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) between project developers and the Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC). However, the HERC found discrepancies in APTEL’s order. APTEL had mentioned signing PPAs between the developers and HPPC, but no such agreements had been signed. Only Letters of Intent (LOIs) had been issued, creating confusion over the validity of the agreements. Moreover, the APTEL order did not specify the tariff at which these PPAs should be approved, which further complicated the process. During the HERC proceedings, HPPC’s counsel informed the commission that a civil appeal had been filed with the Supreme Court to challenge APTEL’s judgment. HPPC suggested that if the project developers were willing to sign PPAs at the tariff rate determined in an upcoming bidding process, they would not seek a stay on APTEL’s order. The majority of the project developers, represented by their counsel, agreed to HPPC’s proposal. They expressed their willingness to accept the lowest tariff identified in the recent HPPC bidding process, which was ?2.99/kWh. These developers also requested permission to establish new project companies, in line with the terms of the original Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). However, one developer insisted that APTEL’s order should be followed and argued for a higher tariff of ?5/kWh. The HERC had previously instructed the same developer to submit detailed documentation, including information about its project’s capacity, allotment date, costs, and expenditures. Despite this, they did not provide the necessary details. Instead, its counsel relied on the APTEL’s order and submitted older documents, including information related to a now-defunct company, bank guarantees, a Detailed Project Report (DPR), land lease agreements, and preliminary activities involving solar panel procurement. The HERC noted that they had not made substantial progress on their solar power plant project. The commission pointed out that the tariff from the 2015-2016 bidding process was no longer applicable for projects that were not commissioned at that time, especially when there had been no significant progress on the ground. This view was further supported by the fact that most of the other developers had agreed to accept the lower tariff of ?2.99/kWh. In the end, the HERC decided to approve the execution of PPAs with all parties, including Ms. Rani, at the tariff rate of ?2.99/kWh. The commission also acknowledged that the civil appeal filed by HPPC in the Supreme Court was still pending. Furthermore, the developers were granted the option to form new project companies, as they had requested. The case was then disposed of, bringing the matter to a close for the time being. |
