#electricityact

Open Access Consumers tracking cross-subsidy surcharge cases should note CSERC’s 8 June 2026 order in Petition No. 14 of 2022. The Commission dismissed CSPDCL’s plea seeking action under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act against Bharat Aluminium Company. Open Access Consumers are affected because the case arises from a 27 July 2016 cross-subsidy-surcharge order linked to 2014-15 open-access power. EnergylineIndia.com highlights this update for readers tracking State electricity regulator orders and APTEL orders. CSERC reasoned that the dispute is already pending in Review Petition No. 04 of 2026, making contempt action inappropriate at this stage. The Commission granted CSPDCL liberty to refile later. Open Access Consumers should read the order as a procedural development rather than a final settlement of surcharge liability. The issue remains open because the review petition is still pending. Open Access Consumers disputes often involve multiple layers: original tariff or surcharge order, review proceedings, enforcement request and possible penalty action. Open Access Consumers should watch whether CSPDCL revives enforcement after the review matter is decided.

Mid-scale private generators must navigate multi-year jurisdictional appeals regarding fractional megawatt capacities, a legal mechanism that locks up operational bandwidth. Short-term green markets bear the consequence, starved of the liquidity these generators could otherwise provide to the broader exchange.

The Electricity Act of 2003 established the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) to resolve disputes between generators and state regulators. However, the tribunal's procedural timeline allows contract disputes over minor capacity ratings to drag on for decades. This framework legally forces independent generators to prioritize litigation survival and legal overhead over active participation in real-time or term-ahead power exchanges, sidelining the exact flexible capacity needed to balance the grid.

A Judgment / Appeal Order from the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, dated 16th March, 2026, officially dismisses an appeal over a localized 18 Megawatt (MW) capacity reduction for a Power Purchase Agreement originating in 2007. In contrast, the Indian Energy Exchange GTAM_Trade Details for 16-03-2026 logs a symptomatic clearing volume of just 0.73 MWh in specific trading blocks. A 19-year legal battle over 18 MW acts as a tracer dye, proving that the appellate framework structurally traps the mid-scale capacity required to deepen the illiquid 0.73 MWh green term-ahead market.

Legal authorities argue that statutory due process cannot be accelerated simply because the megawatt capacity in dispute is small, maintaining that all contractual appeals require rigorous judicial scrutiny to ensure regulatory fairness. While legal equity is necessary, utilizing a 19-year supreme appellate process to resolve an 18 MW contract dispute structurally paralyzes the commercial agility of mid-scale power producers.

The Ministry of Power must establish a fast-track arbitration mechanism with a strict 180-day resolution limit for all capacity disputes under 100 MW. Without this regulatory reform, mid-scale independent power producers will remain legally stranded in appellate courts rather than actively participating in the short-term energy markets.

The 2010 WTG-first principle and 85% deemed-sale rule remain valid after the review dismissal. Utilities can continue settlement under the 2024 hierarchy.

Tribunal affirms earlier sequencing order

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed Review Petition No. 11 of 2025 filed by Investment & Precision Castings Ltd (IPCL) against its 3 December 2024 judgment in Appeal 339 of 2018. That earlier judgment had re-sequenced Gujarat’s multi-source energy accounting, giving first priority to wind-turbine generation (WTG), followed by Short-Term Open Access (STOA) energy, and finally distribution supply from PGVCL.

With the latest order dated 3 November 2025, the bench of Mr Virender Bhat (Judicial Member) and Ms Seema Gupta (Technical Member-Electricity) has reaffirmed the 2010 WTG-first clause and the 85 % deemed-sale pricing rule for monthly surpluses—closing a multi-year challenge.

Consumer’s banking-loss argument rejected

IPCL alleged a financial loss of ₹ 30.65 lakh in denied six-month banking benefit and ₹ 3.37 lakh from curtailed deemed-sale credit. The petitioner claimed APTEL’s 2024 formula ignored historical wheeling agreements (2006 and 2010) and the 2002 banking policy, terming it a “manifest error.”

The Tribunal disagreed, holding that the petition sought to substitute methodology rather than correct a self-evident mistake—and therefore amounted to an appeal in disguise. Only patent or apparent errors qualify for review, not interpretive disagreements.

Law of review strictly applied

Citing Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Supreme Court precedents—Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) and S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022)—the Tribunal reiterated that review powers extend solely to “glaring omissions or mistakes apparent on the record.” Erroneous decisions must be corrected through appeal, not re-hearing. Finding no fresh evidence or self-evident error, the bench declined jurisdiction to reopen the case.

Outcome and implications

APTEL concluded that no patent mistake or omission existed in its December 2024 ruling, dismissing the review petition without costs.

For Gujarat’s distribution licensees, the decision secures continuity of the 2024 settlement hierarchy— 1️⃣ WTG energy first (2010 WTG before 2006 WTG, surplus sold at 85 %), 2️⃣ then STOA energy, 3️⃣ and finally PGVCL supply.

For captive consumers, it clarifies that banking-benefit or tariff-valuation disputes must be raised before the regulator or via statutory appeal, not through review.

Final takeaway