The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has disposed of a petition filed by Carbonminus Maharashtra One Private Limited (CMOPL) against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. (MSEDCL) concerning the implementation timelines of a 730 MW grid-connected solar power project. The order was issued on October 6, 2026, after the two parties reached consensus on the issues that had initially led to the dispute.
CMOPL had filed the petition on February 11, 2026, seeking extensions for the Scheduled Commencement of Supply Date (SCSD) and financial closure under the Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) executed with MSEDCL in April 2025. The project is being developed under a Maharashtra government scheme aimed at solarizing lift irrigation systems.
According to CMOPL, delays occurred because MSEDCL had not handed over registered land from the Water Resource Department and had not provided the required grid connectivity. The developer also apprehended that MSEDCL could forfeit or encash its performance bank guarantee because of delays in meeting contractual milestones.
MSEDCL initially opposed the petition, stating that the project developers were aware of their responsibility to arrange land and could have secured alternative private land. The distribution company also highlighted that CMOPL had failed to achieve financial closure within the stipulated period.
MSEDCL further raised concerns over a bank guarantee submitted by CMOPL. The company had initially submitted a bank guarantee of Rs 36.5 crore that was found to be fraudulent, following which an Economic Offences Wing complaint was filed. Fresh bank guarantees were subsequently submitted by CMOPL in February 2026.
The position of the parties changed during the proceedings as CMOPL began taking steps to procure private land for the project. MSEDCL subsequently permitted the use of private land for 660 MW of the proposed capacity. During the final hearing held on July 14, 2026, MSEDCL stated that it had no objection to extending the financial closure and SCSD deadlines.
CMOPL also informed the commission that land acquisition was almost complete and that financial closure would be achieved shortly. With both parties reaching consensus, the commission found that the dispute that had formed the basis of the petition no longer remained.
MERC observed that its jurisdiction under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, is intended to address disputes between electricity sector entities. Since no active controversy remained between CMOPL and MSEDCL, the commission concluded that there was no dispute requiring adjudication.
The commission also clarified the contractual mechanism for extending project timelines. Under Article 6.5 of the PPA, MSEDCL can grant an extension of up to two months based on valid supporting evidence. Any extension beyond two months would require a formal amendment to the agreement between the parties under Article 16.1.
MERC noted that the agreed tariff of Rs 0.88 per kWh is beneficial from the perspective of power procurement costs and consumers. However, it stated that it could not independently modify contractual timelines in the absence of a live dispute.
The petition was therefore disposed of, with CMOPL and MSEDCL directed to mutually determine extensions and financial closure matters in accordance with the PPA. The commission granted both parties liberty to approach it again if any fresh dispute arises.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
