CERC Rejects Adani Power’s Plea On Open Access Charges

CERC Rejects Adani Power's Plea On Open Access Charges

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in its latest has order dismissed a petition by Adani Power Limited challenging state transmission charges levied for electricity supplied to MPSEZ Utilities Limited, ruling the company has no legal standing in the case.

In a recent order, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) said the charges were imposed on MPSEZ Utilities, not Adani Power, and therefore any challenge must come from the recipient of the bill.

Case Background

Adani Power had approached CERC in August 2023, arguing that no state transmission charges or losses should apply to the electricity it supplied to MPSEZ Utilities under existing power purchase agreements. The company claimed it used only the Inter-State transmission network operated by the Central Transmission Utility of India (CTUIL), and not the intra-state grid managed by Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO).

The petition also sought a refund of Rs 21.7 crore in charges collected by GETCO up to May 2023, with interest. Adani Power said the power was delivered through a dedicated 220 kV line from its Mundra plant to MPSEZ Utilities, which connects directly to the national grid. It argued that no part of Gujarat’s state transmission network was used, and therefore the charges were unjustified. The company also said it reimburses MPSEZ Utilities for the disputed charges and was thus financially affected by the levies.

GETCO, SLDC Defend Open Access Charges 

However, Gujarat’s State Load Despatch Centre (SLDC) and GETCO maintained that the charges were applicable under open access norms, and that the connection involved both state and inter-state networks. They also challenged CERC’s jurisdiction and said the petition was time-barred.

In its ruling, the regulator said Adani Power was not the party directly impacted, as the charges and permissions were issued to MPSEZ Utilities. It said Adani Power’s reimbursement agreement with the utility did not give it legal standing to challenge the fees. “The petitioner cannot be considered an aggrieved party solely on the basis of commercial arrangements,” CERC said.

Observation to SLDC

The Commission did not examine arguments on jurisdiction or the validity of the charges, citing the lack of standing. CERC also criticised SLDC Gujarat for inconsistent conduct. The regulator noted the SLDC had earlier certified that state charges were not applicable, only to reverse its stance from May 2018, later calling its earlier approvals inadvertent.

“Statutory bodies must act consistently, especially in matters involving financial implications,” the order said. The petition was formally dismissed.