Omnicore Weekly #282 - 23 October 2026

Dear Patrons & Readers,

NTPC Renewable Energy Limited

Versus

Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rajasthan Urja Vikas Niga,m Limited, Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited, AEW India North One Private Limited & Green Infra Wind Energy Limited

Background:

1. Assail, in this appeal, is to the order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the 1 st respondent Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) in petition no.1905/2021 whereby the Commission has refused to recognize (i) directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Order dated 19.04.2021 (Great Indian Bustard case) requiring the power generators to install bird flight diverters, and (ii) the enhancement of Grid Connectivity Charges under the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Determination of Tariff from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “RERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2020”), as Change in Law events affecting the power generators including the appellant herein.

2. The appellant had initially raised both these pleas in the appeal. However, on 21.07.2026, when the appeal had come up for hearing, learned counsel for the appellant restricted the scope of the appeal to the claim of the appellant with regards to entitlement for compensation on account of increase in Grid Connectivity Charges as a Change in Law event alone.

3. Undisputedly, the bid deadline in the instant case was 28.10.2020. At that time RERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2015 were in force. Regulation 48 of these regulations prescribed Grid Connectivity Charges @ Rs.2 lakh per MW. Subsequently, RERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2020 were notified on 02.11.2020. Vide Regulation 89.1 read with Regulation 48 of these regulations, the Grid Connectivity Charges were enhanced to Rs.2.5 lakh per MW. Accordingly, the appellant has paid Rs.11.75 crores towards enhanced Grid Connectivity Charges instead of Rs.9.40 crores as would have been payable in terms of RERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2015.

4. The Commission, in the impugned order, has refused to acknowledge the increase in Grid Connectivity Charges as a Change in Law event on the ground that as per the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) executed between the appellant and the respondent no.3 Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (in short “SECI”), it is the responsibility of the solar power developer i.e. the appellant to obtain grid connectivity and to bear the risks as well as costs incidental to it.

5. We have heard Mr. Shri Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Amal Nair, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Ms. Anushree Bardhan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. We have also perused the written submissions filed by the learned counsels.

6. learned counsel for the appellant would argue that merely because obtaining grid connectivity was contractually the responsibility of the appellant does not mean that the statutory enhancement in the Grid Connectivity Charges would not constitute Change in Law event in terms of the PPA provisions in this regard. He submitted that RERC Renewable Energy Regulations, 2020 were notified after the bid deadline and these squarely fall within the definition of the term “law” under the PPA, which expressly includes any statute, ordinance, regulation, notification, rule or other instrument having the force of law. To buttress his submissions on this aspect, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GMR Warora Energy Limited v. CERC and Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 401.

7. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the claim of the appellant with regards to increase in Grid Connectivity Charges as Change in Law event is not maintainable at all for the reason that the appellant had not raised any such claim during the proceedings before the Commission. It is pointed out that the impugned order has been passed by the Commission qua three different power generators, one of which was the appellant and the claim with respect to enhancement of Grid Connectivity Charges constituting a Change in Law event under the PPAs was raised by the other two generators on which the Commission had returned its findings in the impugned order. It is argued that the appellant cannot be permitted to raise such a claim for the first time in its appeal before this Tribunal. On merits it is argued that the Commission has rightly held that since the grid connectivity was the responsibility of the appellant and the associated risks/costs incidental to the grid connectivity were to be borne by the appellant, the increase in Grid Connectivity Charges cannot be recognized as a Change in Law event affecting the power generators. It is further pointed out that even otherwise also, the claim of the appellant is not maintainable for the reason that no notice, as required under Article 12.3 of the PPA, was served by the appellant upon the respondents. On these submissions, the learned counsels for the respondents urged us to dismiss the appeal.

8. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Article 12 of the PPA does not prescribe issuance of notice as a condition precedent for claiming relief for the Change in Law event. He would further submit that having resisted the claim of respondent nos.2 and 3 in this regard before the Commission, they are precluded from contesting the entitlement of appellant under the said Change in Law event on the technical plea of absence of notice. On this aspect, the learned counsel as relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal dated 15.09.2022 in appeal no.256/2019 & Batch M/s Parampujya Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. CERC & Ors. The learned counsel would also dispute the contention agitated on behalf of the respondents that the appellant had not specifically claimed the assessment of impact of Grid Connectivity Charges before the Commission.

32. It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that merely because obtaining grid connectivity was contractually the responsibility of the appellant does not mean that the statutory enhancement in these charges would not constitute Change in Law. These arguments have been advanced for the reason that the Commission has, in the impugned order, held that in terms of the PPA, the increase in Grid Connectivity Charges has to be borne by the solar power developers and their claim for declaration of increase in such charges as Change in Law cannot be accepted. Pertinently, these observations have been made by Commission on the claim made by respondent nos.4 and 5 in this regard. As already noted hereinabove, no such claim was made by the appellant before the Commission. While prima facie finding no fault in these observations of the Commission, we are of the opinion that a detailed discussion in this regard would be appropriate in the appeals, if any, filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5 against the impugned order.

Highlights from the week of
16 October 2026 to 23 October 2026