The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) issued an order in response to a petition filed by Solairepro Urja Private Limited (SUPL), a solar power generating company. The petition was filed under Section 79 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and relevant provisions of the Indian Electricity Grid Code (IEGC) Regulations, 2010 and 2023. SUPL owns and operates a 250 MW Solar Power Project in the Kadapa Ultra Mega Solar Park in Andhra Pradesh. The company approached CERC seeking directions for the Andhra Pradesh State Load Dispatch Centre (APSLDC) to honor the “Must Run” status of its solar project and to compensate for losses due to arbitrary curtailment of generation.
SUPL argued that APSLDC unlawfully curtailed power generation from its solar project, despite the power plant being accorded “Must Run” status under the Electricity (Promotion of Generation of Electricity from Must-Run Power Plant) Rules, 2021. The petitioner sought a directive to prevent further curtailments that are not justified by technical constraints such as grid security. Additionally, SUPL demanded financial compensation for the loss of revenue caused by these curtailments.
APSLDC, as the first respondent, is responsible for ensuring the secure and economic operation of the state grid. It must oversee the real-time operation of the power system in Andhra Pradesh in compliance with the IEGC and the state grid code. APSLDC’s actions in curtailing solar power were challenged by SUPL, which claimed that these curtailments were arbitrary and not based on genuine technical grid constraints.
NTPC Limited and its subsidiary, NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd. (NVVN), were also named respondents in the case. NTPC, which has a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with SUPL, was set to procure 250 MW of solar power from the project. NVVN, as a trading licensee, was responsible for bundling the solar power with unallocated thermal power and selling it to Andhra Pradesh distribution companies (DISCOMs) under a Power Sale Agreement.
The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APEPDCL) and the Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APSPDCL) were also involved in the case as they had signed agreements to receive the bundled power. Both entities are responsible for the distribution of electricity in their respective service areas. The transmission company, Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation (APTRANSCO), was another respondent in the matter.
Additionally, the Andhra Pradesh Solar Power Corporation Private Limited (APSPCL), which is the designated Solar Power Park Developer for the Kadapa Ultra Mega Solar Park, was a party to the case. Its role includes facilitating solar power generation and ensuring that regulatory norms are followed within the solar park.
During the proceedings, legal representatives from both sides presented arguments. The petitioner emphasized the financial impact of the curtailments and cited regulatory provisions that safeguard the interests of solar power developers. The respondents defended their actions by referring to grid management requirements.
The Commission took note of the submissions made by all parties and examined whether APSLDC’s curtailments complied with the regulatory framework. The order emphasized the importance of maintaining grid security while ensuring that “Must Run” status plants are not unfairly curtailed. The Commission is expected to provide clarity on whether SUPL is entitled to compensation for lost generation and to set a precedent for handling similar cases in the future.
