Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) Rejects PESOT’s Bid To Intervene In Solar Dispute

Posted On - 5 August, 2024 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Summary

M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited filed a petition with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) seeking compensation for losses incurred due to curtailment/backing down instructions issued by the Tamil Nadu Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) and the Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation (TANTRANSCO). The Power Engineers Society of Tamil Nadu (PESOT) filed an application to be impleaded as a respondent in the case, arguing that the compensation claim, if granted, could lead to increased tariffs for consumers. The TNERC dismissed PESOT’s application, stating that PESOT was not a necessary party to the case and lacked the locus standi to intervene in the dispute between the generator and the licensees.[1]

Case Timeline

  • April 2020 to January 2022: SLDC and TANTRANSCO issued curtailment/backing down instructions to M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited.
  • 16th April 2024: TNERC reserved orders in the main petition (DRP No. 5 of 2023) filed by M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited.
  • 30th May 2024: PESOT filed an application (I.A. No. 1 of 2024) seeking impleadment in the main petition.
  • 18th July 2024: TNERC dismissed PESOT’s application.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether PESOT is a necessary party to the main proceedings.
  2. Whether PESOT’s prayer to be impleaded as a respondent in the main petition is maintainable under law.

Appellant’s Arguments

  • PESOT argued that it has the right to be impleaded as a respondent because it represents the interests of electricity consumers in Tamil Nadu and any financial damages awarded to the petitioner could lead to higher tariffs for consumers.
  • PESOT claimed that it has the locus standi to approach the Commission as a member of the public served by TANGEDCO and any financial damages suffered by TANGEDCO would affect the public at large.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited argued that PESOT does not have a locus standi in the case as it is neither a generator nor a licensee, the only parties who can approach the Commission under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act 2003.
  • M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited contended that PESOT has not suffered a legal injury and therefore cannot be considered an aggrieved party.
  • The respondents (TANGEDCO, TNSLDC, and TANTRANSCO) did not file any counter-affidavit disclosing their stand.

Order

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission dismissed the application filed by PESOT, concluding that PESOT was not a necessary party to the main proceedings and lacked the locus standi to intervene in the dispute between the generator (M/s. Solitaire BTN Solar Private Limited) and the licensees (TANGEDCO, TNSLDC, and TANTRANSCO). The Commission also emphasized that the power to adjudicate disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act is restricted to generators and licensees, and allowing other parties to intervene would undermine the integrity of the Act.

Analysis

The TNERC’s decision to dismiss PESOT’s application is consistent with the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and the TNERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations 2004. The Commission’s emphasis on the limited scope of Section 86(1)(f) and the need to avoid unnecessary parties in the dispute resolution process is in line with the principles of efficient and effective adjudication. The decision also underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the regulatory framework by ensuring that only parties with a direct stake in the outcome of a dispute are allowed to participate in the proceedings.

[1] http://www.tnerc.gov.in//Orders/files/CO-IANo1%20o180720240509.pdf