Missed Deadline, Missing Space: APTEL Says Rooftop Solar PPA Not Maintainable

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has upheld a decision of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) declaring a rooftop solar power purchase agreement (PPA) lapsed due to the failure to submit mandatory documents within the stipulated timeline.

The ruling came after an individual consumer challenged KERC’s order, which had endorsed the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited’s (BESCOM) decision to treat the PPA as non-enforceable. BESCOM had cited the petitioner’s failure to furnish proof of adequate rooftop space required to install a 1,000 kW solar plant within the prescribed 15-day period.

Petitioner's Arguments 

The petitioner argued that KERC’s conditional approval letter was addressed to BESCOM and not directly to her, denying her an opportunity to comply with the conditions. She also attributed the lapse to internal delays and communication gaps within the utility and claimed that the relevant documents had been submitted even before KERC issued its conditional approval.

She further invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation, contending that BESCOM had acted unfairly by declaring the PPA lapsed without issuing a proper notice.

BESCOM's Objections 

BESCOM, however, submitted that the PPA never came into force as the prerequisite conditions were not met. The utility said a copy of KERC’s conditional approval letter had been marked to the petitioner, clearly informing her of the requirement to submit proof of at least 9,700 square metres of rooftop area within 15 days.

BESCOM added that a physical inspection of the premises showed the available rooftop area was only 8,696 square metres, insufficient to support the proposed 1,000 kW solar installation.

APTEL's Order

In its order, APTEL backed KERC’s findings, stating that the petitioner should have acted with due diligence after receiving the conditional approval. The tribunal said that prior submissions of documents did not absolve her of the obligation to meet the commission’s specific conditions within the prescribed timeframe.

APTEL also rejected claims of internal miscommunication, noting that the petitioner had received a copy of the approval letter and was aware of the requirements.

“In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the Commission. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed,” the APTEL judgement said.