The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission recently held a hearing regarding a petition filed by Vaayu (India) Power Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought adjustments in the tariff determined by the Commission in its Order No. 1 of 2010. This tariff was set for the procurement of power by distribution licensees from wind energy generators. The petitioner argued that adjustments were necessary as they did not avail the benefits of accelerated depreciation, as provided for in the original tariff order.
The petitioner’s legal representative highlighted that the matter involves recalibrating the tariff to reflect the lack of accelerated depreciation benefits. Although the Commission had earlier affirmed the maintainability of this petition, the issue is currently pending before the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has allowed the proceedings for tariff redetermination to continue under the Commission’s purview, subject to its final approval for any conclusive order.
The petitioner claimed they had already provided all required documentation, including Chartered Accountant certifications, tax returns, and other financial records, to justify their case. They also addressed concerns about related party transactions, maintaining that these were conducted at arm’s length and were supported by necessary records. However, they rejected requests for additional unrelated documents by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL), which questioned the prudence and relevance of these transactions in tariff determination.
GUVNL, the respondent, argued against adjusting the fixed tariff agreed upon in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). They cited a similar Supreme Court judgment related to solar power projects, asserting that the petitioner had not provided sufficient reasons to deviate from the fixed tariff. They also sought further documentation to verify claims about loans and related party dealings, emphasizing the need for transparency and project-specific evidence.
Both parties requested additional time to file written submissions and respond to the other’s arguments. The Commission granted a four-week deadline for these submissions, with a directive for copies to be shared with the opposing party. The next hearing date will be communicated separately.
The case remains unresolved, with the final decision contingent on further submissions and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
