A tariff discovered for a 50 MW project cannot be applied to a 3 MW project.

PEDA allotted the appellant a 3 MW solar project under a 2015 competitive-bidding process.

The PPA, executed on 31 March 2015, required commissioning within ten months and provided a tariff of ₹7.58/kWh.

The project’s 1 MW capacity was commissioned on 18 May 2016 and the remaining 2 MW on 15 March 2017, after the scheduled commissioning date.

The appellant sought an extension of SCOD, relying on force majeure events and delays in the readiness of the 66 kV bay.

The Commission condoned 49 days’ delay, refused to condone the balance, upheld PEDA’s entitlement to encash the performance bank guarantees and PSPCL’s entitlement to liquidated damages, and fixed the tariff for the remaining 2 MW at ₹5.09/kWh.

The appellant appealed, principally challenging that tariff determination.

1. Whether the Commission’s refusal to condone delay beyond 49 days, and its findings concerning encashment of the performance bank guarantees and liquidated damages, warranted appellate interference.

2. Whether the Commission could apply the ₹5.09/kWh tariff discovered in a later bidding process for projects of at least 50 MW to the appellant’s delayed 2 MW capacity, and what tariff should apply instead.

Article 3(C) of the Implementation Agreement provided that if the project’s COD extended beyond 31 March 2016, the stated tariff would cease to apply and the developer would have to obtain a tariff redetermination from the Commission.

The Implementation Agreement and PPA also provided for performance bank guarantee forfeiture and liquidated damages in the event of delay.

In PSPCL v. Abundant Energy Pvt. Ltd., Appeal No. 316 of 2018, the Tribunal had affirmed a redetermined tariff of ₹5.39/kWh for that developer’s project.

The judgment identifies no separate statutory provision or general legal doctrine as the basis for its decision; it applies the relevant contractual terms and assesses tariff redetermination by reference to the record and the comparable project.

The Tribunal found no basis to disturb the Commission’s delay findings: the appellant did not advance submissions on the delay issue at the hearing, and the record disclosed no material warranting a contrary view.

It therefore upheld the 49-day allowance, the remaining delay findings, the encashment of the bank guarantees, and liquidated damages for 361 days’ delay in commissioning the remaining 2 MW.

On tariff, the Tribunal agreed that the ₹5.09/kWh rate was unsuitable because it had been discovered in a bidding process for a minimum 50 MW capacity, unlike the appellant’s 3 MW project.

It considered the ₹5.39/kWh tariff affirmed for Abundant Energy, but reduced it by ₹0.10/kWh to reflect the appellant’s bid being ₹0.10/kWh lower than Abundant Energy’s bid.

PSPCL’s contention that the appellant benefited from later, lower module prices was not supported by evidence establishing the extent of any price reduction.

The Tribunal upheld the Commission’s refusal to condone delay beyond 49 days, its decision permitting PEDA to encash the performance bank guarantees, and PSPCL’s entitlement to liquidated damages for the 361-day delay relating to the remaining 2 MW.

It set aside the ₹5.09/kWh tariff and held that the appellant was entitled to ₹5.29/kWh for power supplied to PSPCL.

PSPCL was directed to pay any resulting tariff differential within four weeks.