Studying Time: 2 minutes
The Gujarat Electrical energy Regulatory Fee just lately held a listening to relating to a petition filed by Vaayu (India) Energy Company Pvt. Ltd. The petition sought changes within the tariff decided by the Fee in its Order No. 1 of 2010. This tariff was set for the procurement of energy by distribution licensees from wind vitality turbines. The petitioner argued that changes had been needed as they didn’t avail the advantages of accelerated depreciation, as offered for within the authentic tariff order.
The petitioner’s authorized consultant highlighted that the matter includes recalibrating the tariff to mirror the dearth of accelerated depreciation advantages. Though the Fee had earlier affirmed the maintainability of this petition, the difficulty is at present pending earlier than the Supreme Court docket. In the meantime, the Supreme Court docket has allowed the proceedings for tariff redetermination to proceed beneath the Fee’s purview, topic to its closing approval for any conclusive order.
The petitioner claimed they’d already offered all required documentation, together with Chartered Accountant certifications, tax returns, and different monetary information, to justify their case. In addition they addressed considerations about associated get together transactions, sustaining that these had been carried out at arm’s size and had been supported by needed information. Nevertheless, they rejected requests for added unrelated paperwork by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Restricted (GUVNL), which questioned the prudence and relevance of those transactions in tariff willpower.
GUVNL, the respondent, argued in opposition to adjusting the fastened tariff agreed upon within the Energy Buy Settlement (PPA). They cited an identical Supreme Court docket judgment associated to solar energy tasks, asserting that the petitioner had not offered ample causes to deviate from the fastened tariff. In addition they sought additional documentation to confirm claims about loans and associated get together dealings, emphasizing the necessity for transparency and project-specific proof.
Each events requested extra time to file written submissions and reply to the opposite’s arguments. The Fee granted a four-week deadline for these submissions, with a directive for copies to be shared with the opposing get together. The following listening to date can be communicated individually.
The case stays unresolved, with the ultimate choice contingent on additional submissions and the Supreme Court docket’s ruling.
