Electricity Tribunal Rejects Clarification Request In Solar Tariff Dispute With UPCL In Uttarakhand

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, on 24 June 2025, dismissed an application filed by ACME Solar Holdings Limited and four associated companies—Devishi Solar Power, Devishi Renewable Energy, Eminent Solar Power, and Sunworld Energy. These companies had approached the Tribunal seeking a clarification on the judgment delivered on 29 August 2024 in Appeal No. 360 of 2018, which had allowed their main appeal against Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL) and the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC).

The main dispute concerned the entitlement of the solar power developers to a normative levelized tariff of 12 paise per unit over and above the generation tariff. The appellants had developed four solar power projects, each with a capacity of 12.5 MW, making a total of 50 MW. They had opted to construct the power evacuation infrastructure themselves as per the option provided in the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and under Regulation 15.1 of the UERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2013. According to the regulation, developers constructing their own evacuation infrastructure are entitled to an additional 12 paise per unit.

However, UPCL had only been paying 6 paise per unit to each generating company, stating that the 12 paise should be divided among them. The Tribunal, in its 2024 ruling, disagreed with UPCL’s interpretation and directed the payment of the full 12 paise per unit to each of the four developers from their respective dates of commercial operation. The Tribunal also ordered that any outstanding dues be cleared within one month from the date of the order.

Following this, the appellants filed an interlocutory application (IA No. 311 of 2025) requesting clarification that the term “outstanding dues” should include a surcharge of 1.25% and interest at 14%, as per the provisions in the PPAs. The Tribunal rejected this application, stating that there was no ambiguity in the earlier judgment. It clarified that the term “outstanding dues” referred only to the unpaid 12 paise per unit and did not include surcharge or interest. The Tribunal noted that if the appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment, the appropriate course of action would have been to file a review petition or approach the Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The application was therefore found to be not maintainable and was dismissed. The Tribunal emphasized that clarification can only be sought in the presence of ambiguity, which was not the case here.