Solar plants during non-solar hours are not in "shut down," entitling them to net-off billing under PPA.

The Appellant, a solar power producer, entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the Second Respondent in 2014 for a 50 MW project

Per Article 7.01 of the PPA, billing was initially conducted on a "net-off" basis, where imported energy was subtracted from exported energy

In 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

The Appellant challenged this before the Commission, which dismissed the petition in 2018, leading to the current appeal

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

Article 7.01 of the PPA, which defines "Net Power" as Export Units minus Import Units for billing purposes

Regulation 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"

The principle of ejusdem generis for statutory construction

Precedent 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

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

Using the doctrine of purposive interpretation, the Tribunal held that lack of solar radiation does not constitute a shutdown

Applying ejusdem generis, it determined that "emergencies" must be read in the same context as mechanical shutdowns, excluding predictable non-solar hours

The 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

The 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