The Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission recently heard an important case related to the modernization of old solar power projects in the state. The matter involves M/s Dhruv Milkose Private Limited (DMPL), which operates a 1 MW solar plant in Jhansi and has approached the Commission seeking permission to upgrade its aging solar panels.
The dispute started when DMPL requested approval to “repower” its plant by replacing old and inefficient solar PV modules. The company first applied for this in December 2024, but the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited rejected the request in October 2025. Following this, the developer filed a petition, arguing that the refusal was not valid under the terms of its Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) and existing renewable energy guidelines.
DMPL stated that although its PPA, signed in 2010, does not directly mention repowering, it requires compliance with guidelines issued by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency. The company highlighted that IREDA issued repowering guidelines in 2018, which allow solar developers to replace old equipment without changing the approved capacity. Based on this, DMPL believes it has the right to upgrade its plant while continuing with its existing contract.
The company also informed the Commission about the financial losses it has suffered due to the delay. According to its submission, the plant was expected to generate about 1.77 million units of electricity in a year. However, due to degraded modules and the delay in approval, it lost around 0.80 million units. DMPL has claimed compensation of about ₹1.438 crore for losses between December 2024 and December 2025.
During the hearing on April 9, 2026, the Commission, led by Chairman Arvind Kumar and Member Sanjay Kumar Singh, questioned the reasons behind UPPCL’s rejection. The utility’s representative pointed out that the tariff being paid to DMPL under the old agreement is much higher than the current solar tariffs discovered through recent auctions. This indicates that UPPCL may be hesitant to allow upgrades for projects tied to older, costly tariffs.
UPPCL also informed the Commission that it had not received a formal copy of the petition. The Commission then directed DMPL to share all documents with the concerned parties, including UPPCL, IREDA, the Uttar Pradesh New and Renewable Energy Development Agency, and Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited.
The respondents have been given four weeks to file their replies, and DMPL will get two weeks to respond. The next hearing is scheduled for June 4, 2026. The outcome of this case may set an important example for how older solar projects in India can upgrade their systems as they age.
Discover more from SolarQuarter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
