Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission Rejects PESOT’s Bid To Intervene In Solar Dispute

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) issued an order on July 18, 2024, involving an interlocutory application in the main petition filed by M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited. The petitioner’s request was to address the financial losses due to alleged improper backing down instructions from Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) and Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Limited (TANTRANSCO).

M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited, represented by Mrs. SKV Law Offices, filed the main petition seeking compensation for the loss of generation calculated at ₹2,46,44,455, plus an additional ₹82,38,300 as carrying costs. They claimed these losses were due to the curtailment instructions from the Tamil Nadu Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) between April 2020 and January 2022. The petitioner argued that these instructions were issued in violation of the “Must Run” status of their solar project and without sufficient reasons.

The proposed party, Power Engineers Society of Tamil Nadu (PESOT), represented by Thiru S. Gandhi, sought to be impleaded as a respondent in the main petition. PESOT argued that the instructions for curtailment without proper forecasting and scheduling of generation were arbitrary and could lead to a significant financial burden on TANGEDCO, ultimately affecting common consumers through potential tariff hikes.

The Commission reviewed the arguments presented by PESOT and the petitioner. PESOT highlighted that they were an organization formed to protect consumer interests and had previously filed numerous cases before the TNERC and the Madras High Court. They contended that the petitioner’s demand for compensation would unjustly burden common consumers if approved.

The petitioner, M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited, countered that PESOT’s application bore the characteristics of public interest litigation, which should be handled by constitutional courts such as the Supreme Court or High Courts, and not by the TNERC. The petitioner further argued that PESOT did not have the locus standi to be impleaded as a party since they were neither a necessary nor a proper party in the main petition.

The Commission determined that PESOT did not meet the criteria of being a necessary party. The criteria, as laid out by the Supreme Court, require that there must be a right to some relief against such a party concerning the controversies involved in the proceedings and that no effective decree can be passed in their absence. The Commission concluded that PESOT had no right to relief against the petitioner and that an effective order could be passed without PESOT’s involvement.

Furthermore, the Commission noted that the proceedings are generally governed by the procedures outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Impleadment of a third party as a party in a pending suit or proceeding is governed by Rule 10 of Order I of CPC, which states that a person may be added as a party if their presence is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved.

Based on these findings, the Commission ruled that PESOT was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the main petition. Consequently, the application filed by PESOT to be impleaded as a respondent was dismissed. The Commission emphasized that allowing PESOT’s impleadment would set a precedent for any third party to seek involvement in proceedings based on potential financial impacts, thereby undermining the integrity of the regulatory process. The TNERC dismissed PESOT’s application, affirming that the main petition filed by M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited could proceed without PESOT’s involvement, as their presence was not necessary for resolving the issues at hand.

Please view the document here for more details.