SECI’s Petition For Adoption Of Tariff And Regulatory Approval For 600 MW Solar Power Projects (Tranche VIII)

In a recent development under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) has filed a petition for the adoption of tariffs related to 600 MW solar power projects (Tranche VIII) connected to the Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS). These projects were selected through a competitive bidding process following the guidelines set by the Government of India.

SECI initiated the process by issuing a Request for Selection (RfS) for 1,200 MW ISTS-connected solar power projects, attracting eleven bids totaling 4 GW. After shortlisting eight bidders based on technical criteria, an e-reverse auction was conducted, resulting in the selection of four bidders with a combined capacity of 1.2 GW. Letters of Award were issued on April 6, 2020.

As of the petition filing date, SECI had entered into Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) for 1,100 MW, with 300 MW at ₹2.50/kWh with Adani Solar Energy Jodhpur Six Private Limited and 600 MW with distribution companies in Bihar. The remaining 100 MW capacity is yet to be tied up, and SECI sought approval for tariff adoption for the entire 1,200 MW.

During the hearing, the Commission raised concerns about the delay in signing PPAs and sought clarification from SECI. In response, SECI explained that certain factors, such as distribution companies floating their tenders and changes in tariff rates, contributed to a lukewarm response from buying entities. They also mentioned difficulties in signing PPAs due to distribution licensees requiring prior approval from State Commissions.

SECI provided updates on signed PSAs with TANGEDCO for 500 MW and ongoing negotiations with ReNew Solar Power Private Limited and Eden Renewables Alma Private Limited for the remaining 500 MW.

The Commission, considering the adoption of tariffs, reviewed the bidding process adherence to guidelines. It noted that SECI had deviated in the bid documents regarding Change in Law provisions but clarified that the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy had approved these changes retrospectively. The Commission criticized SECI for not awaiting approval before proceeding with the bidding process, advising adherence to procedures.

While the Commission acknowledged lapses in SECI’s approach, it recognized that deviations were known to bidders at the bid submission time. It concluded that the tariff adoption could proceed for the 1,100 MW for which PPAs had been executed.

Regarding Change in Law claims, the Commission referenced a recent APTEL judgment and emphasized that SECI, as the petitioner, had not sought adjudication on this matter. Respondent ASEJSPL’s request for Change in Law relief was deemed inappropriate in the context of this petition.

The Commission encouraged SECI to file a separate petition if seeking approval for a Change in Law. The write-up concludes by stating the petition’s disposal following the Commission’s findings. In summary, the column highlights the key events leading to SECI’s petition, the Commission’s evaluation of the bidding process, and the outcomes related to tariff adoption and Change in Law claims.

Please view the document below for more details.