APTEL Upholds CERC Order On 500 MW Transmission Charges In Bhadla Solar Park Dispute

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity dismissed Appeals No. 116 and 177 of 2023 filed by Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Ltd. (SUCRL), confirming its liability to pay transmission charges as determined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC). The case revolves around the 1,000 MW solar park developed by SUCRL at Bhadla, Rajasthan, and the mismatch between the commissioning of its internal infrastructure and the solar generators connected to it.

SUCRL, a joint venture between the Government of Rajasthan and IL&FS Energy, had developed the solar park under the guidelines of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE). It had executed Long-Term Access (LTA) and Transmission Service Agreements (TSA) with Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL), now CTUIL, for power evacuation. SUCRL undertook to bear all liabilities related to LTA and connectivity on behalf of solar generators, as required by CERC regulations and confirmed in agreements signed in May 2016.

While SUCRL completed the park infrastructure by March 2019, only 200 MW of the committed 500 MW capacity was operationalized by mid-2019. The remaining 300 MW was commissioned much later, between October 2019 and February 2020. In the meantime, the inter-state transmission system (ISTS) built by PGCIL was commissioned and operational from October 25, 2019. Consequently, SUCRL was held liable by CERC to pay the full transmission charges from that date, despite partial generator commissioning.

SUCRL challenged the CERC orders dated 11 June 2022 and 29 August 2022, arguing that it was merely a facilitator or agent of the solar generators and therefore not liable to bear the charges. It contended that since inter-state transmission charges were exempt for solar projects and it was not using the transmission system itself, such charges should be levied only on the generating companies.

The Tribunal, however, rejected these arguments. It emphasized that SUCRL voluntarily undertook liabilities through its contracts and under the regulatory framework. The undertaking dated 23 November 2015 and subsequent agreements clearly bound SUCRL to pay transmission charges for delays in generator commissioning. The Tribunal ruled that by acting as a Designated ISTS Customer (DIC), SUCRL became directly liable under the CERC regulations.

The judgment clarified that the regulatory liability arises not from physical use of the transmission system but from the contractual and operational role of the entity in securing access and capacity. SUCRL, having benefited from streamlined approvals and infrastructure, could not disown the obligations tied to those benefits. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the original CERC orders were upheld.