01Facts
The Appellant, a solar power producer, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Second Respondent in 2014 for a 50 MW project
¶ 2Per Article 7.01 of the PPA, billing was initially conducted on a "net-off" basis, where imported energy was subtracted from exported energy
¶ 3In 2016, the Second Respondent unilaterally changed this pattern, directing that imported power be billed separately under temporary industrial rates, citing Regulation 10 of the 2010 MPERC Co-generation Regulations
¶ 4–5The Appellant challenged this before the Commission, which dismissed the petition in 2018, leading to the current appeal
¶ 6–702Issues
i.1. Whether the term “shut down period” as used in Regulation 10 of the 2010 MPERC Co-generation Regulations includes the night-time period when a solar power plant is unable to generate electricity due to the absence of sunlight
¶ 903Law Applied
Article 7.01 of the PPA, which defines "Net Power" as Export Units minus Import Units for billing purposes
¶ 12Regulation 10 of the MPERC (Co-generation and Generation of Electricity from Renewable sources of Energy) (Revision-I) Regulations, 2010, which mandates temporary industrial tariffs for power drawn during a plant's "shutdown period" or "emergencies"
¶ 14The principle of ejusdem generis for statutory construction
¶ 21Precedent set in Malwa Solar Power Generation Pvt. Ltd. v. MPERC, which barred netting-off only when the generator sold power to entities outside the host state
¶ 2504Reasoning
The Tribunal rejected the Commission's finding that solar plants are in "shutdown" mode at night. It reasoned that "shut down" implies a deliberate turning off of machinery or an inactive state, whereas a solar plant remains operational and ready to generate power whenever resources (sunlight) are available
¶ 17–19Using the doctrine of purposive interpretation, the Tribunal held that lack of solar radiation does not constitute a shutdown
¶ 20Applying ejusdem generis, it determined that "emergencies" must be read in the same context as mechanical shutdowns, excluding predictable non-solar hours
¶ 21The Tribunal noted that because the Appellant supplies power directly to the State Discom (unlike the facts in the Malwa case), the netting-off provision in the PPA remains valid and enforceable
¶ 26–2805Holding
The Tribunal answered the issue in the negative, holding that night-time non-generation is not a "shut down" period under Regulation 10
¶ 29The impugned order was set aside. The court held that the Appellant is entitled to be billed on a net-off basis as per Article 7.01 of the PPA, and the Second Respondent is restrained from charging separate temporary industrial rates for auxiliary consumption during non-solar hours
¶ 30–31Original Court PDF
M/s Renew Solar Energy (TN) Pvt. Ltd.vsMadhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
