Reading Time: 2 minutes
The order discusses the case involving SPFL, a wind power generator, and the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). SPFL has been supplying wind power to MSEDCL, but there have been disputes regarding the agreements and payments.
SPFL commissioned wind power projects under the policy for power generation from non-conventional sources of energy in Maharashtra. This policy required promoters to sell 50% of the generated electricity to MSEDCL. SPFL commissioned several wind turbine generators (WTGs) at different locations, such as Satara and Sangli, and entered into power purchase agreements (PPAs) with MSEDCL and third parties like Graphite India Ltd.
SPFL had an open-access model for supplying power until March 2017. After the expiration of this agreement, SPFL continued to inject power into the grid from April 2017 to November 2017 without a new EPA. During this period, SPFL supplied 66,42,153.45 units of power to MSEDCL. Despite continuous follow-ups, a new long-term EPA was not executed until December 2017.
MSEDCL benefited from the power supplied by SPFL and generated credit notes for the power supplied during this period. However, SPFL claimed that MSEDCL failed to respond to multiple applications and letters regarding the new EPA. Eventually, MSEDCL issued a Letter of Award and executed a short-term PPA in December 2017, followed by a long-term EPA in November 2018.
The main issues addressed in the order include whether SPFL is entitled to payments for the power injected without a valid EPA and whether the claim is barred by the law of limitation. MSEDCL argued that there was no agreement to purchase power during the period in question, and the petition was filed after more than six years, making it barred by limitation.
The Commission examined the submissions and documents presented by both parties. SPFL contended that MSEDCL should pay for the power supply based on generic tariff rates. MSEDCL, on the other hand, argued that without a valid EPA, there was no obligation to pay for the power injected during the disputed period.
The Commission noted that SPFL had indeed injected power into the grid from April 2017 to November 2017 without a valid agreement. The credit notes issued by MSEDCL did not acknowledge any liability for payment. SPFL issued invoices in April 2023, well beyond the period of limitation for such claims.
The Commission had to determine the applicability of the law of limitation and the entitlement of SPFL to payments for non-contracted power injection. The order highlights the complexities and challenges in managing agreements and payments in the renewable energy sector, particularly for wind power projects.
