SOFAR
Sineng

Legal Challenge Against APTRANSCO: Disputing Charges On Captive Solar Assets

0
243
Representational image. Credit: Canva

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (APL) filed a petition against APTRANSCO regarding the charges imposed on two of its high-tension service connections in Srikakulam District. The first connection pertains to the pharmaceutical plant’s supply from the 132/33 kV Pydibheemavaram Substation, while the second relates to a solar captive generating plant. The dispute arose over operation and maintenance (O&M) charges levied by APTRANSCO for maintaining the lines and bays associated with these connections.

APL argued that these charges were arbitrary and lacked legal backing, as the assets created by the company were handed over to APTRANSCO and were, therefore, the latter’s responsibility to maintain. APL contended that the charges imposed for the period between the commissioning of the assets and their handover were unjustified. The company also pointed out that these costs were already covered in the electricity tariffs paid by the consumer and requested a refund of the amounts paid under protest.

The respondents, APTRANSCO and its officials, countered by stating that the assets had not been formally handed over until 2023, justifying the charges for maintenance during the period in question. They also claimed that the petitioner was responsible for the maintenance until the formal transfer of the assets, and hence the charges were valid.

Also Read  Econergy Secures โ‚ฌ31 Million Financing for 60 MW Ovidiu Solar Project in Romania

After hearing both sides, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) concluded that the charges were imposed without proper legal authority. The commission referred to previous rulings where similar charges were deemed illegal due to the absence of a contractual or statutory basis. APERC ordered APTRANSCO to refund the amounts collected from APL, though it denied the petitionerโ€™s request for interest on the refunded amount. The decision underscored the need for proper statutory backing for such charges and reaffirmed that maintenance costs should not be imposed on consumers without clear legal justification.


Discover more from SolarQuarter

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.