APTEL Refuses To Provide Relief To ReNew In 300 MW Wind Project

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, in an order dated September 10, has ruled on a case involving ReNew (through ReNew Naveen Urja Private Limited) and SECI , and by extension, CERC.

Case Overview: Renew Naveen Urja Private Limited (Appellant) vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) & Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI). ReNew  sought a stay on the CERC’s order adopting a tariff for a wind power project. Their key argument  was that the bidding process had legal issues and deviations from standard guidelines without prior approval, causing undue hardship. The tender in 2021 had attracted bids at Rs 2.69/unit.

The RfS was floated on 25.05.2021 by SECI, for the procurement of an aggregate capacity of 1200 MW of Wind Power. ReNew submitted its bid on 15.07.2021 and, on 21.10.2021, SECI issued a Letter of Award to them. ReNew and SECI entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) on 29.08.2022 for a term of 25 years for development of 297.5 MW (AC) capacity of Wind Power Project anywhere in India at a Tariff of INR 2.69/Unit, and the consequent supply of power to SECI, with the scheduled commissioning date (SCOD) of the project as 30.12.2023. The said PPA was amended on 08.12.2022 increasing the capacity of the Project to 300 MW (AC).

APTEL Sets Aside HERC Ruling, Awards Right To Sell Solar Power At Rs 5.68/unit

Also Read

SECI argued that the appellant’s request for interim relief is a tactic to avoid penalties and bank guarantee encashment due to non-compliance with the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

APTEL ORDER

Going by various Supreme Court judgments emphasize that courts should be slow in granting injunctions unless there is strong evidence of fraud or irretrievable harm, APTEL refused to grant any interim relief to ReNew. The tribunal in its order said that did it not find a strong prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the appellant(ReNew). The order ruled that that SECI could invoke the bank guarantee if they chose to do so, as the appellant did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to prevent this. On the fear of, and implications of Blacklisting by SECI, the tribunal noted that any blacklisting proceedings initiated by SECI would need to follow due process, and the appellant could challenge such actions in appropriate proceedings.

APTEL Accepts SGD As Change In Law, Relief Likely For Developers

Also Read