Force Majeure - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

11Oct

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals against concurrent orders of CERC and APTEL. It upheld that coal linkage for a power plant is allocated to the project as a whole, not to specific PPAs. Consequently, the additional cost from 'Change in Law' events must be apportioned pro-rata among all power procurers based on their energy drawal. Facts Of The Case: GMR Kamalanga Energy Limited (GKEL) set up a power plant and entered into long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with three utilities: Haryana, Odisha (GRIDCO), and Bihar. The project was allocated coal from specific linkages and a captive block, intended for the entire plant. When changes in law and a coal supply shortfall increased GKEL's costs, it sought compensation. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) ruled GKEL w...

Supreme Court Backs Discom: Upholds Right to Encash Bank Guarantee in Delayed Solar Project

The Supreme Court held that the Power Purchase Agreement's explicit terms govern the parties' rights. The encashment of the performance bank guarantee was valid as the developer failed to seek an extension under the contractual mechanism or issue a mandatory Force Majeure notice. Regulatory commissions cannot rewrite the contractual risk allocation or grant remedies outside the agreed framework. Facts Of The Case: The dispute arose from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed between Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (CESC) and Saisudhir Energy Pvt. Ltd. for a 10 MW solar power project. The PPA stipulated that the developer was to achieve the Commercial Operation Date (COD) within 12 months, preceded by fulfilling certain Conditions Precedent within 240 days. A critical pr...

Who Pays for Unpaid Power Bills? Supreme Court Explains ‘Regulatory Asset’ Mess and Orders a Fix

The Supreme Court ruled that Regulatory Assets, while a valid regulatory tool, must be created only in exceptional circumstances and liquidated in a time-bound manner. It upheld the legal framework under the Electricity Act, 2003, and directed strict adherence to the newly inserted Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules, which mandates a maximum 3% gap in revenue and a 7-year liquidation period for existing assets. The judgment emphasizes the duty of Regulatory Commissions to ensure cost-reflective tariffs and affirms APTEL's power under Section 121 to issue directions against regulatory failure. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from petitions and appeals filed by three private power distribution companies (Discoms) in Delhi—BSES Rajdhani, BSES Yamuna, and Tata Power Delhi—agains...