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
Madras HC Directs Municipality to Auction Amusement Rides Licenses on Vaigai Riverbed for Chithirai Festival: Madurai Bench
17 Apr 2026
TCS Nashik Accused Seek Bail in Harassment Probe
17 Apr 2026
Insurer Liable for Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle, Can Recover from Owner: Kerala High Court
17 Apr 2026
MP High Court Issues Notice in PIL Alleging Disrespect to National Song 'Vande Mataram' by Indore Councillors: Article 51A(a)
17 Apr 2026
Bombay HC Grants NSE Ad-Interim Relief Against Fake Social Media Accounts Infringing 'NSE' Trademark: Platforms Must Takedown in 36 Hours
18 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Tags Challenges to UP Gangsters Act with Similar Organised Crime Laws from Gujarat, Maharashtra: Refers to 3-Judge Bench
18 Apr 2026
Loan Repayments for Assets Can't Reduce Maintenance Under Section 144 BNSS: Supreme Court
18 Apr 2026
Fernandez Seeks to Turn Approver in ₹200 Cr PMLA Case
18 Apr 2026
Prosecution Can't Gatekeep Witnesses: Rajasthan HC Directs Summoning of Doctor Under Section 311 CrPC for Just Decision
18 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.