APERC Orders Refund Of Unjust Maintenance Charges To Solar Power Developer

Aurobindo Pharma Ltd filed a petition with the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission regarding charges imposed by APTRANSCO for maintaining transmission lines and substations. The dispute involves two cases—one linked to a pharmaceutical manufacturing unit and the other to a 30 MW solar captive generating plant. Both projects were established by the company, with the necessary approvals from the authorities and following all required procedures.

The solar power plant, with HT Service Connection (HTSC) No. SKL-423 was commissioned in May 2017 to supply solar energy for captive use. The company funded and constructed the required 132 kV transmission line and related bay infrastructure on a turnkey basis. This setup helped connect the plant to the Pydibheemavaram grid substation in Srikakulam District. The physical transfer of the line and bays was completed in May 2023 through a formal gift deed.

Even though the company maintained the line and equipment and paid for all construction and supervision charges, APTRANSCO issued a demand in 2018 for annual operation and maintenance (O&M) charges for the period from 2017 to 2018. A similar charge was later raised for the pharmaceutical unit’s power connection going back to 2011. The petitioner objected to these demands, stating they were neither legally justified nor based on any contractual agreement.

The company argued that according to the regulations and guidelines in place, such as the Grid Tariff Code and APERC-approved documents, any infrastructure built and handed over becomes the property of the utility company, which is then responsible for maintaining it. They pointed out that the cost of such maintenance is already accounted for in the tariff they pay, and hence they should not be charged again. The petitioner also relied on previous Commission decisions and national legal principles that prohibit imposing financial liabilities without legal backing.

The respondents, on their part, claimed that the lines and bays were still in the petitioner’s name until the official handover in 2023. They argued that until that point, they had maintained the assets and were entitled to recover the costs. They also cited internal orders and procedures, but the Commission found that these did not have the force of law to justify charging additional fees.

The Commission reviewed both cases and concluded that the maintenance charges imposed by APTRANSCO were unlawful. It highlighted that once the infrastructure is commissioned and used by the utility—even if formally handed over later—it is considered their property. Hence, the utility is responsible for maintenance, and cannot demand separate payments from the consumer. The Commission also referred to past judgments and noted the significant delay in raising these demands.

As a result, the Commission ordered the refund of ₹48.42 lakh to Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, the amount paid under protest, but without any interest. This decision sets a strong precedent in favour of solar developers and industrial consumers investing in clean energy infrastructure, affirming that they cannot be unfairly burdened with post-commissioning maintenance charges.