Andhra Pradesh

Interim stay on finalisation of tenders for solar power projects

A view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court building.   | Photo Credit: V. Raju

A single-judge Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice M. Ganga Rao, has stayed till the next hearing on February 15 the finalisation of tenders pertaining to the solar power projects proposed to be developed by the State government for supplying free power to the farm sector.

TPREL contention

The case was filed by the TATA Power Renewable Energy Limited (TPREL), which argued that the dispute resolution mechanism provided for in the Requests for Selection (RfS) and the draft Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) had an effect of defeating the jurisdiction of the AP Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) under Section 63 of the Electricity Act.

In its writ petition, TPREL prayed for quashing the impugned RfS for a total capacity of 6,400 megawatts and the draft PPAs issued by the AP Green Energy Corporation Limited (APGECL).

TPREL sought a direction to the APGECL to issue fresh RfS strictly in accordance with the guidelines for tariff-based competitive bidding process for procurement of power from grid connected solar photovoltaic projects stipulated by the Ministries of Power and New & Renewable Energy.

The State government issued RfS for setting up solar power projects with a total 6,400 MW capacity in 10 solar parks (four in Kadapa, three in Anantapur, two in Prakasam and one in Kurnool district).

‘Violation of guidelines’

The private sector power giant argued that the modification of certain directions pertaining to the tenure of the draft PPAs, sale of assets, revision of lease rents for private and assigned lands, generation compensation for back down, passing of safeguard and basic custom duties through tariff adjustment etc. by the State government was in violation of the Electricity Act and relevant guidelines laid down by the Centre.

Appearing for the Energy Department and APGECL, government pleader Y.N. Vivekananda contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as the TPREL neither submitted a bid nor indicated a location in which it was interested. Senior advocate D. Prakash Reddy presented arguments on behalf of TPREL.

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Mar 6, 2021 5:51:09 PM |

Next Story