The Azure Power Forty-One Private Limited (APFPL) and Azure Power Maple Private Limited (APMPL) have filed petitions seeking compensation under the Electricity Act 2003. They requested relief due to changes in customs duties affecting their solar power projects. The petitions argue that the increase in basic customs duty (BCD) on solar inverters imported into India, from 5% to 20%, has led to financial strain. The change in law, stemming from the rescission of Notification No. 1/2011 – Customs, significantly impacted the financial viability of their projects.
The projects, developed in response to bids from Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI), were subjected to altered customs duties post-bidding. The petitioners contend that the tariff calculations submitted during bidding did not account for such increases in duties. The rise in BCD resulted in additional costs for the import of solar inverters, affecting the overall capital expenditure of the projects. These unforeseen expenses, not factored into their bids, threatened the economic sustainability of the ventures.
In response to the petitions, the regulatory commission acknowledged the impact of the customs duty changes on the projects. They recognized the rescission of Notification No. 1/2011 – Customs and the subsequent increase in BCD as significant changes in law. This decision underscored the financial burden imposed on the petitioners due to higher duties on imported solar inverters.
Furthermore, the commission noted the increase in social welfare surcharge (SWS) and integrated goods and services tax (IGST) as additional challenges faced by the petitioners. The hike in BCD directly affected the quantum of SWS and IGST, exacerbating the financial strain on the projects.
The regulatory body emphasized the need to compensate the petitioners for the adverse effects of the change in law. They highlighted Article 12 of the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) as the basis for granting relief. According to this provision, any alteration in taxes, duties, or levies directly affecting the project constitutes grounds for compensation.
Regarding the methodology for compensation, the commission endorsed a monthly annuity payment scheme. They specified a discount rate and annuity period applicable to each petition, ensuring fair restitution for the incurred losses. The directive for monthly annuity payments was intended to alleviate the financial burden on the petitioners in a timely manner.
Moreover, the commission acknowledged the concept of carrying costs incurred by the petitioners. These costs, arising from the delay in compensatory payments, were deemed eligible for reimbursement. The commission outlined criteria for determining the rate of interest applicable to these carrying costs, ensuring equitable treatment for the petitioners.
In light of the restitution clause embedded in the PPAs, the commission delineated the scope of compensation, emphasizing the need to restore the petitioners to their pre-change in law financial status. However, they also recognized the legal proceedings surrounding post-commercial operation date compensation, deferring enforcement pending further judicial review. Ultimately, the regulatory commission’s decision aimed to uphold fairness and equity in addressing the adverse impacts of the change in law on the petitioners’ solar power projects. By providing clear guidelines for compensation and acknowledging the complexities of the regulatory landscape, the commission sought to mitigate the financial uncertainties faced by the petitioners and uphold the integrity of contractual agreements within the energy sector.
Please view the document below for more details.
Discover more from SolarQuarter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
