Case Law
Subject : Legal - Energy Law
```markdown
New Delhi, March 12, 2025
– The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has issued a landmark order directing a tariff revision for Coastal Gujarat Power Limited’s (CGPL) Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project (UMPP), a subsidiary of Tata Power. This decision follows the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s (APTEL) judgment dated October 25, 2024, which partially overturned CERC’s previous stance on ‘Change in Law’ claims raised by CGPL. The CERC bench, comprising Chairperson Shri
The case originates from a petition filed by CGPL in 2016, seeking tariff increases to account for escalated capital costs due to ‘Change in Law’ events during the construction phase of the 4000 MW Mundra UMPP. These events, as defined under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed in 2007 with distribution companies (Discoms) from Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Haryana, pertain to alterations in law that occurred after the bid submission date, impacting project costs.
Initially, CERC, in its order dated August 31, 2017, had only partially allowed CGPL’s claims, rejecting key components like increased land acquisition costs for water intake and outfall channels, changes in excise duty on civil materials (steel and cement), and service tax increases, among others. Aggrieved, CGPL appealed to APTEL, as did some Discoms challenging the partially favorable aspects of the CERC order.
APTEL’s judgment of October 2024 provided significant relief to CGPL. Crucially, APTEL broadened the interpretation of “Land” under the ‘Change in Law’ clause (Article 13.1.1 of the PPA), ruling that it encompassed not just the originally identified 2750 acres but also additional land acquired for essential water infrastructure. APTEL directed CERC to reconsider:
Land Acquisition Costs: APTEL modified CERC’s order, affirming CGPL’s entitlement to compensation for the actual expenditure on acquiring land for water outfall and intake channels, beyond the initially declared price. > "…the difference between indicative price of water pipeline corridor and the actual expenditure incurred by TPCL on it qualifies as Change in Law event and TPCL would be entitled to be compensated for the same." - APTEL Judgment
Service Tax and MOEF&CC Conditions: APTEL overturned CERC’s rejection and sided with CGPL on claims related to increased service tax on works contracts and costs arising from additional conditions imposed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEF&CC). APTEL relied on its precedent judgment in a similar case (Coastal Gujarat Power Limited vs. CERC & Ors., Appeal No. 172 of 2017) .
However, APTEL upheld CERC’s denial of ‘Change in Law’ status for changes in excise duty on civil materials (steel and cement) and additional stamp duty.
Following APTEL’s directives, CERC conducted a “prudence check” on CGPL’s claims, scrutinizing submitted documents and auditor certifications. CERC affirmed the following key costs as eligible for ‘Change in Law’ compensation:
CERC quantified the total principal amount allowed towards capacity charges at ₹149.64 crore, subsequently restricted to ₹100 crore for tariff calculation as per the PPA's block of ₹50 crore mechanism for capital cost increases. This translates to a 0.534% increase in non-escalable capacity charges, effective from March 7, 2012.
The order mandates the Discoms to:
This CERC order marks the implementation of APTEL’s significant interpretation of ‘Change in Law’ provisions in PPAs, particularly concerning land acquisition costs for essential project infrastructure and other unforeseen regulatory changes. It underscores the principle of restitution, ensuring power generators are economically protected against legal changes occurring post-bid, thereby fostering investment security in the energy sector. However, the final financial implications remain subject to the outcome of appeals pending before the Supreme Court.
```
#EnergyLaw #RegulatoryLaw #PPA #CentralElectricityRegulatoryCommission
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.