Mytrah Vayu (Brahmaputra) Private Limited, a renewable energy generating company, has filed a petition seeking redressal under the Electricity Act, 2003. The petition alleges issues arising from a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) dated 04.09.2018 with the Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI). The company asserts its rights under Regulation 111 of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 1999.
Mytrah Energy India Private Limited (MEIPL), the holding company, won the bid for a 300 MW solar power project in an e-Reverse auction. The Letter of Award (LOA) was issued on 01.06.2018, leading to the formation of M/s Mytrah Vayu (Brahmaputra) Private Limited (the Petitioner). The project aimed at developing, operating, and maintaining a grid-connected solar power project.
Despite the PPA being executed on 04.09.2018, SECI delayed seeking tariff adoption until November 2019, causing economic and financial viability issues. This delay impacted the Petitioner’s ability to fulfill payment obligations towards GE India Industrial Private Limited under a related agreement.
SECI’s delayed actions led to increased project costs, affecting the Petitioner’s ability to honor equipment supply agreements, and resulting in their cancellation. The Petitioner, citing Force Majeure events, requested the termination of the PPA, emphasizing delays caused by SECI’s failure to obtain necessary approvals promptly.
Issues such as the introduction of the TN Land Allocation Policy and the COVID-19 pandemic further complicated the project. The Petitioner faced challenges in obtaining financing, and the project became economically unviable. The Petitioner sought relief from SECI, including the release of a Performance Bank Guarantee (PBG).
The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) admitted the petition on 05.03.2020 and directed SECI not to take coercive action against the Petitioner. The case underwent hearings in April and August 2022, and in May 2023, after which the matter was reserved for orders.
The Petitioner argued that SECI’s actions, including denying a change of location to Karnataka, contributed to project difficulties. They invoked Force Majeure clauses, including the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to increased tariff costs. The Petitioner also claimed that the termination of the PPA was in the national interest.
SECI contested the Petitioner’s claims, stating that the PPA’s provisions were final and binding. They argued that the Petitioner did not object to the tariff adoption process initially and had secured multiple extensions before terminating the PPA.
The CERC, after a detailed analysis of events, ruled against the Petitioner’s claims. The Commission found that the delays in tariff adoption and changes in land allocation policy did not qualify as Force Majeure events. They noted that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate tangible delays directly linked to the TN Land Allocation Policy.
The Commission also rejected the Petitioner’s plea regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the project timelines had already been extended by SECI. The Commission held that the act to be performed by the Petitioner had not become impossible, but merely difficult within the extended timeframe. In conclusion, the Commission found that the Petitioner wrongly terminated the PPA under Article 13.5.1. No relief was granted to the Petitioner, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. The ruling emphasized that various events claimed by the Petitioner did not qualify as Force Majeure events under the PPA’s terms.
Please view the document below for more details.
Discover more from SolarQuarter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
