APTEL Rejects Solar Developers’ Plea for Interest, Surcharge

APTEL Rejects Solar Developers’ Plea for Interest, Surcharge

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed an application by a solar developer and its subsidiaries seeking interest and surcharge on previously awarded tariff payments, ruling that the request constituted a review petition disguised as a clarification.

The application filed by ACME and four of its special purpose vehicles (SPVs), sought clarification on APTEL’s August 2024 judgment that directed Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd (UPCL) to pay a normative tariff of ₹0.12 per unit for solar evacuation infrastructure built by the developers.

Clarification on Dues 

ACME asked the tribunal to clarify whether the term “outstanding dues” in the original judgment also included a surcharge of 1.25% and interest at 14% per annum as per the power purchase agreements (PPAs). The tribunal, however, ruled on June 24, 2025, that the application was not a clarification but a review, and such a request should have been filed accordingly under the Civil Procedure Code.

“There is no ambiguity in the earlier judgment,” the bench comprising Technical Member Sandesh Kumar Sharma and Judicial Member Virender Bhat said in its order. “The omission of any direction regarding surcharge and interest must be construed as rejection of those claims.”

The case pertains to four 12.5 MW solar projects (50 MW total) developed by ACME’s SPVs in Uttarakhand. The developers had constructed their own evacuation infrastructure and argued they were entitled to a tariff of ₹0.12/kWh for each plant, in line with regulatory provisions.

In 2018, the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC) rejected this claim, allowing only ₹0.06/unit per generating station. The developers challenged the decision in 2018. APTEL, in its August 29, 2024, ruling, set aside UERC’s order and upheld ACME’s entitlement to ₹0.12/unit for each project. It also directed UPCL to clear pending payments within a month.

Specific Prayers

However, APTEL’s judgment did not address specific prayers made by the developers for interest and surcharge. The tribunal noted that in the original appeal, the petitioners had made four prayers, of which only the first two—related to tariff entitlement and setting aside UERC’s order—were granted.

“If the appellants were dissatisfied with the omission of surcharge and interest, the appropriate remedy would have been a review petition or an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,” APTEL stated.

The ruling underscores the importance of choosing the correct legal remedy in regulatory disputes. It also finalizes the financial compensation owed to the developers, excluding any additional amounts on account of delay.

The respondents in the case included UERC, UPCL, and the Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd (PTCUL), all based in Dehradun.