APTEL Upholds SUCRL Liability For Transmission Charges Linked To Solar Project Delays

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed a review petition filed by Saurya Urja Company of Rajasthan Ltd. (SUCRL), upholding its liability to pay transmission charges linked to delays in commissioning solar power projects within its solar park.

The case relates to orders passed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in June and August 2022. CERC had held SUCRL responsible for transmission charges arising from delays in commissioning solar projects in the park. SUCRL challenged the orders before APTEL through two appeals, but the tribunal dismissed both appeals on June 24, 2025.

SUCRL subsequently filed a review petition, claiming that the earlier judgment contained errors. The company argued that CERC had not provided it with a proper opportunity to present its case and that APTEL had not considered certain earlier legal precedents. It also challenged factual findings in the judgment and argued that an undertaking signed by SUCRL in November 2015 was conditional.

SUCRL further contended that the solar power generators involved in the matter should have been included as parties to the appeals. The company argued that their absence affected the tribunal’s consideration of the dispute.

APTEL rejected these arguments. The tribunal noted that SUCRL had itself restricted the scope of its original appeals to its own liability for transmission charges. It also observed that, in late 2023, SUCRL had requested the removal of individual solar power generators from the appeals, stating that related disputes would be addressed separately through contractual arrangements.

The tribunal therefore held that SUCRL could not subsequently argue that the proceedings were defective because those parties were not included.

APTEL also examined the undertaking provided by SUCRL in November 2015. The tribunal reiterated that SUCRL had undertaken to bear liabilities associated with connectivity and Long-Term Access (LTA) on behalf of the generators. According to the tribunal, SUCRL had obtained approvals for multiple power units and received administrative and operational benefits in the process. Therefore, the undertaking was considered binding under the applicable regulatory framework.

The tribunal also rejected SUCRL’s reliance on earlier judgments, stating that those cases concerned different regulatory provisions and were not applicable to the present dispute.

In its order, APTEL said SUCRL had failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The tribunal distinguished between an erroneous judgment, which can be challenged before a higher court, and a reviewable error or procedural defect.

APTEL concluded that the review petition was effectively an attempt to re-argue issues already decided and dismissed it accordingly.