❌

Normal view

Received today β€” 6 April 2026

Adani Power Secures 2,500 MW RE RTC Supply Deal With MSEDCL

6 April 2026 at 07:19

Adani Power Limited has secured a long-term contract to supply 2,500 MW of Renewable Energy Round-the-Clock (RE RTC) power to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited for 25 years. This contract, awarded after a successful electronic auction, will enhance the state's renewable energy capacity and supports India's transition to sustainable power sources.

The post Adani Power Secures 2,500 MW RE RTC Supply Deal With MSEDCL appeared first on SolarQuarter.

Received before yesterday

Petition of Hatsun Agro Product Limited for seeking directions upon MSEDCL to allow Net Metering – EQ

Summary:

β€”

### **1. BACKGROUND & CONTEXT**

HAPL operates a manufacturing plant in Solapur, Maharashtra, and is an MSEDCL consumer (Consumer No. 341629059470). It had installed a **983 kW rooftop solar system** under a **Net Metering Agreement** with MSEDCL (executed August 2022). HAPL also entered into **Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)** for captive renewable energy supply through open access.

The dispute arose because after availing **Open Access** for its offsite renewable power, MSEDCL **refused to allow Net Metering** for HAPL’s rooftop solar generation, instead treating it on a **Gross Metering basis** from November 2023 onward. This resulted in significant financial loss to HAPL.

β€”

### **2. HAPL’S MAIN PRAYERS**

1. Direct MSEDCL to treat HAPL’s rooftop solar system under **Net Metering** arrangement.
2. Grant **retrospective adjustment** of amounts paid from the start of Open Access (November 2023) based on Net Metering.

β€”

### **3. KEY ARGUMENTS OF HAPL**

– HAPL is eligible under **Regulation 3.2** of the Distribution Open Access (DOA) Regulations (Contract Demand > 1 MVA).
– The **DOA (Second Amendment) Regulations 2023** (effective 10 November 2023) **deleted the 8th proviso** that earlier mandated Gross Metering during Open Access.
– New **Regulation 3.4** explicitly permits simultaneous Open Access and Net Metering for eligible consumers.
– MSEDCL’s continued Gross Metering billing is **contrary to the amended regulations**.
– HAPL had repeatedly requested MSEDCL to allow Net Metering (Jan–July 2025) but received no response.
– MSEDCL’s reliance on its own **Clarification Petition (Case No. 232 of 2024)** is misplaced as the regulation is already in force.

β€”

### **4. MSEDCL’S DEFENSE**

– At the time of commissioning (Nov 2022), the **DOA (First Amendment) Regulations 2019** applied, which required Gross Metering during Open Access.
– The 2023 Amendment is **prospective**, and HAPL did not apply for **Green Energy Open Access (GEOA)** through the proper **Nodal Agency (MSLDC)** as required.
– MSEDCL filed **Case No. 232 of 2024** seeking clarification on the interpretation of Regulations 3.3 and 3.4, which is still pending.
– Until clarity is provided, existing billing (Gross Metering) continues.
– HAPL’s failure to comply with GEOA procedure renders its claim invalid.

β€”

### **5. MERC’S ANALYSIS & RULINGS**

#### **a) Regulatory Framework (Issue a)**
– The **8th proviso of the 2019 Regulations** (requiring Gross Metering during Open Access) was **deleted** in the 2023 Amendment.
– **Regulation 3.4** now explicitly allows **simultaneous Open Access and Net Metering**.
– Since HAPL’s Open Access started in **November 2023**, billing **must follow Net Metering** from 10 November 2023 onward.

#### **b) Compliance with Open Access Procedure (Issue b)**
– MSEDCL delayed implementing the 2023 Amendment until directed by MERC in **Case No. 129 of 2024** (Sept 2024).
– HAPL applied to MSEDCL (as Nodal Agency under earlier rules), and MSEDCL approved monthly Open Access.
– **MSEDCL’s own failure to implement the new system cannot deny HAPL its rightful benefit.**

#### **c) Overlap with MSEDCL’s Clarification Petition (Issue c)**
– In **Case No. 197 of 2024** (July 2025), MSEDCL had already **agreed to provide Net Metering adjustments** subject to the outcome of its clarification petition.
– MERC held that **MSEDCL cannot discriminate** between similarly placed consumers.
– The regulation is **in force**, and MSEDCL must comply.

β€”

For more information please see below link:

❌