Mumbai: Maharashtra Commission (Merc) has assured Bombay High Court that it will not implement up to 14 July, its command that green energy manufacturers complain makes it difficult to supply excessive electricity to the network for later search.
This step comes after the renewable energy consortium has questioned the decision and stated that this would paralyze their ability to provide continuous energy, which makes them uncommon.
The court listened to a request filed by the National Federation of Solar Energy in India (NSEFI), JSW Neo Energy LTD and nine other solar developers, including Sunsure Solar Park MH One PVT. LTD and Solenco Solar Park MH-V Pvt. Ltd.
Also read | Solar investment of 20% in developing countries, says ISA
Developers have marked MERC decisions by any, illegal and harmful to commercial viability of clean energy projects in the state.
Merc, along with Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company LTD (MSSSCL), said that the contested provisions will not enforce until mid -July.
“The aforementioned statement is admitted as an enterprise that has resigned. With regard to the aforementioned statement, we will find that the petitioners are reasonably protected at this stage and therefore no further relief is provided in the above,” said July 1.
In addition to Merc’s order of 25 June, developers questioned regulations 115 of the multi -year tariff regulations (MyT), 2024, which seizes distribution companies to design new slots and tariffs.
The main problem in court stems from the conversion of Merc on its decision in March 2024, which allowed consumers to draw solar energy in various tod slots – allowing operational flexibility and financial efficiency. According to revised rules, solar energy must be banched during, say, 9:00 to 17:00, strictly consumed in this window, which will significantly reduce the value of banking.
As a result, the supply of renewable energy for commercial and industrial (C & I) for solar companies is more expensive. This is because solar energy is generated excessively during the morning and afternoon, when the sun shines the brightest. Excess energy during this period is supplied to the grid and drawn MSSSTCL. Later, when the C&I customer needs energy when the sun fits, it tends to attract it from the grid for a nominal fee, usually about 8-10% of energy.
Solar manufacturers are afraid that the change of bank structure would endanger their long -term agreements on energy supply with C&C consumers with rising costs.
MSSDCL proposed to change the banking structure, because it was more expensive to supply energy back during the non -volume hours from other sources. India suffers from insufficient capacity for storing solar energy.
Also read | Global Green energy growth on the course but Lags Target, says representatives of Irena Chief
In court, developers argued that Merc had adopted a change without public consultations, a legal requirement in tariff matters, violating the principles of natural justice.
“The petition for review (filed before MERC) has not been made available to the parties to the parties, nor have they been allowed to deal with any arguments,” writes the petition, calling this process a “complete legal principle of law”.
They also argue that their intervention applications looking for hearing in review proceedings were rejected without explanation.
Impact on clean energy projects
The petition states that the order is influenced by almost 600 MW of the solar capacity in the mahara.
Developers are trying to cancel the Directive and Regulation of June 25, 115, and claims that delegates delegates deploying the authority of distribution companies.
Legal experts argue that the case is raised by wider issues concerning regulatory liability and administrative justice.
“The inability of MERC to provide a proper process, such as adequate hearing or consultations, before the issue of a significant impressive review order is a direct violation of the proposal’s fundamental legal law on fair administrative measures,” said Kunal Sharma, founder and leader of Tarakssh Lawyers & Consultants.
He noted that although the petition does not directly question Regulation 115, the court could still intervene an order for procedural or jurisdic reasons.
“The petition derives considerable strength from the argument that the revised provisions on banking are not in line with the existing DOA regulations and that Merc worked beyond its limited jurisdiction of review,” Sharma said.
Sachit Mathur, a control partner of Emerald Law, offered a different perspective, suggesting that the control command could withstand if the Merc justification is healthy.
Also read | Pralhad Joshi: The International Solar Alliance shone the way to clean energy
“With regard to the provisions of Tarif and banking, it can rely on the jurisdiction of the review. In particular, the omission of Regulation 20.3 could credibly qualify as a fault apparent on the face of the record,” Mathur said.
Merc claims that the review command is clarified and harmonizes the tariff framework with earlier control processes. It insists that the entry of the stakeholders was carried out during the original MYT proceedings and that repeated consultation during review is not mandatory. She also warned that granting relief only for procedural reasons could create a sweeping precedent.
(Tagstotranslate) Maharashtra Regulatory Commission for Electricity (T) Bombay High Court
