Saatvik Green Energy Acquires 80% Stake in Transformer Manufacturer

MERC Rejects Avaada’s ₹477 Million Change-in-Law Compensation Claim

CleanCapital Sells 120 MW Solar Project in Ohio

MERC Approves Tariffs for 8 MW Round-the-Clock Renewable Energy

EMERAM Acquires Stake in Home Energy Management Firm Solar Manager

Maharashtra Forms Panel to Review Electricity Duty on Rooftop Solar

Sterling and Wilson’s Revenue Drops 23% but Profit Surges in Q4 FY 2026

Adani Green Energy Operationalizes 292 MW Solar Project in Gujarat

EIE Renewables to Acquire 150 MWh Battery Storage Project in Bihar

MERC Approves 60 MW Wind-Solar PPA Withdrawal, Citing High Tariff


					<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls   controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/amazon_polly_81059.mp3?version=1750686211">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table><p>The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://merc.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MERC</a>) has directed the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (<a href="https://www.mahadiscom.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MSEDCL</a>) to refund excess wheeling and transmission charges collected from a wind power project between August 2018 and May 2023.</p>
<p>The refund, totaling ₹14.2 million (~$165,272), must be paid along with applicable interest within one month.</p>
<p>The Commission also asked MSEDCL to verify the claims of the petitioner, Ghatge Patil Industries (<a href="https://www.gpi.co.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GPIL</a>), before releasing the payment and rejected the petitioner’s demand for litigation costs, finding it without merit.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>GPIL owns 17.25 MW of wind power capacity in Dhule, Maharashtra, and supplies electricity to its manufacturing units at Uchgaon and Kagal through open access.</p>
<p>It approached MERC, alleging that from August 2018 to May 2023, MSEDCL incorrectly levied wheeling and transmission fees based on generation rather than the actual energy drawal at the point of consumption. This practice, according to GPIL, violated established MERC orders and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s 2022 judgment.</p>
<p>GPIL sought a refund of ₹14.2 million (~$165,272) with 15% interest, asserting that MSEDCL&#8217;s actions constituted repeated violations and a continuing wrong. It also requested litigation costs from the distribution company.</p>
<p>MSEDCL argued that GPIL’s petition was time-barred for any period before May 2021.</p>
<p>It maintained that charges were levied per Regulation 14.6 of the Distribution Open Access Regulations, 2016, and the Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) Order of November 2016.</p>
<p>The MYT Order established the framework for determining wheeling charges, focusing on net energy sales without losses. It included specific rates and distinctly separates wheeling charges from losses.</p>
<p><strong>Commission’s Analysis</strong></p>
<p>The Commission rejected MSEDCL’s limitation argument and held the billing practice as a continuing wrong. It found that MSEDCL’s billing practice of levying charges based on generation rather than drawal was inconsistent with the regulatory framework and previous orders.</p>
<p>MERC emphasized that the MYT Order of 2016 did not authorize billing based on generation losses twice and criticized MSEDCL for failing to align its billing methodology with clarified regulatory norms and judicial pronouncements.</p>
<p>The Commission directed MSEDCL to refund the excess wheeling and transmission charges of ₹14.2 million (~$165,272) with 15% interest.</p>
<p>MERC also noted MSEDCL&#8217;s procedural lapses, delayed filings, and contradictory positions in various forums. It cautioned MSEDCL against future non-compliance and warned of stricter scrutiny.</p>
<p>The Commission, however, rejected GPIL’s request for litigation costs.</p>
<p>Recently, MERC <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/maharashtra-regulator-rejects-plea-to-scrap-rooftop-solar-grid-support-charges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> a petition filed by a renewable energy consultant seeking the abolition of grid support charges imposed on rooftop solar systems with capacities above 10 kW and below 1 MW.</p>
<p>Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time <a href="https://mercomindia.com/product/mercoms-renewable-energy-regulatory-updates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regulatory Updates </a>to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.</p>


MERC Orders Refund of ₹14.2 Million Excess Charges to Wind Power Project


					<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls   controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/amazon_polly_72118.mp3?version=1730288543">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table><p>The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (<a href="https://aptel.gov.in/en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">APTEL</a>) has reprimanded the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://merc.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MERC</a>) for failing to conduct a thorough, case-specific examination of a petitioner&#8217;s grievances and provide clear reasoning when applying precedents.</p>
<p>The case relates to a petition filed by engineering firm Ghatge Patil Industries (<a href="https://www.gpi.co.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GPIL</a>), which had approached MERC seeking an extension of the banking period to carry forward the unused power for future adjustments. It had also sought the issuance of generation credit notes for billing adjustments, a waiver of fixed demand charges during the COVID-19 lockdown, and flexibility to adjust its contract demand with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (<a href="https://www.mahadiscom.in/en/home/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MSEDCL</a>).</p>
<p>The Maharashtra regulator had, however, refused any relief to the petitioner.</p>
<p>APTEL ruled that MERC had ignored GPIL&#8217;s unique circumstances, such as the COVID-19 lockdown impacts on operations, which the petitioner argued warranted special considerations like extended banking periods and credit adjustments for unused energy.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>GPIL has a significant electricity demand contract, supported partly by its 15 MW wind power projects in Dhule district, Maharashtra. Initially, GPIL had a wind energy power agreement with MSEDCL but, after termination in 2018, used the power generated for self-consumption under an open access arrangement.</p>
<p>During the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, GPIL faced operational shutdowns and consequently could not utilize its power generation. However, it still incurred charges from MSEDCL for unused energy injected into the grid.</p>
<p>GPIL requested MERC to extend the time to adjust the unused power from its wind projects. It also requested that energy injected during lockdowns be credited for future billing periods and that it should be relieved from fixed charges for the lockdown duration. It sought flexibility in adjusting its contract demand with MSEDCL.</p>
<p>GPIL claimed the pandemic and ensuing lockdown constituted a force majeure event, warranting an extended banking period to adjust unused power. It argued that MERC’s open access regulations, allowing banking adjustments monthly, should be relaxed in light of the unforeseen operational impacts.</p>
<p>MSEDCL opposed these requests, referring to a prior ruling involving similar prayers from the Indian Wind Power Association. MERC upheld MSEDCL’s position and refused to extend the banking period or grant the requested relief, claiming regulatory constraints.</p>
<p>GPIL then appealed to APTEL, arguing that MERC’s decision did not consider the lockdown&#8217;s distinct impacts on its operations and that force majeure should apply, allowing for regulatory flexibility in adjusting the banking period and related charges.</p>
<p><strong>Tribunal’s Analysis</strong></p>
<p>APTEL criticized MERC’s decision by applying a previous ruling to GPIL’s case without evaluating the petitioner’s unique circumstances. According to APTEL, a regulatory body should provide individualized judgments, especially when faced with exceptional situations like the COVID-19 lockdown.</p>
<p>The Tribunal highlighted that MERC had overlooked proper judicial practice by not notifying GPIL of the reliance on its prior ruling.</p>
<p>APTEL held MERC’s approach lacked thorough examination and transparency and did not meet regulatory standards.</p>
<p>The appellate body nullified MERC’s ruling and directed that it reconsider GPIL’s petitions independently and issue a revised order based on a detailed analysis within two months.</p>
<p>The Tribunal also directed the registrar to transmit a copy of its judgment to all the Electricity Regulatory Commissions for information and compliance.</p>
<p>In January last year, MERC <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/regulator-discom-pay-interest-delayed-payments-wind-developer/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">directed</a> MSEDCL to pay ₹2.62 million (~$32,073) to GPIL as interest on delayed payment charges after GPIL sought directions against MSEDCL for recovering delayed payment charges along with the accrued interest amount against invoices generated under the energy purchase agreements.</p>
<p>Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time <a href="https://mercomindia.com/product/mercoms-renewable-energy-regulatory-updates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regulatory Updates </a>to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.</p>


APTEL Rebukes MERC for Denying Petitioner Relief on Force Majeure Grounds

gpil

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS