/images/ppid_59c68470-image-1768297531296472.webp)
What is the story about?
GRIDCO Ltd has approached the Supreme Court against an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) directing the Odisha government-owned power trader to pay fixed capacity charges and delayed payment surcharge to GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd for the period from April 2015 to March 2017, sources said on Tuesday, January 13.
GMR Kamalanga claimed outstanding dues of around ₹280 crore for FY16 and FY17, arising from fixed or capacity charges linked to declared power availability. GRIDCO, however, has argued that it cannot be held liable for payments related to nearly 515 million units of power that were neither scheduled nor supplied during the disputed period.
In its appeal, GRIDCO has contended that the APTEL ruling is contrary to the provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed between the two parties. The company has maintained that capacity charges should be payable only on the basis of power actually scheduled and drawn, and not merely on the basis of declared availability.
Read more: SJVN arm, GRIDCO to form JV for green energy projects in Odisha
The company also stated that it has already paid about ₹100 crore under protest, even as it disputes its liability for the remaining amount.
The dispute stems from a September 3, 2025, judgment by APTEL dismissing GRIDCO’s appeals and upholding earlier Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) orders.
The tribunal ruled that fixed or capacity charges must be calculated in accordance with the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014, based on the generator’s declared capacity, irrespective of whether the power was scheduled or consumed.
Read more: Supreme Court orders equal sharing of coal shortage costs among DISCOMs
APTEL held that statutory tariff regulations override contractual provisions in cases of inconsistency, and that under the availability-based tariff regime, generators are entitled to recover capacity charges for making power available, independent of actual drawal. It also upheld the levy of delayed payment surcharge in line with the PPA.
GMR Kamalanga operates a 1,050 MW coal-based thermal power plant in Odisha’s Dhenkanal district, while GRIDCO acts as the bulk power procurement agency for state distribution companies.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal could have wider implications for the power sector. If the APTEL order is upheld, it could potentially open the door for similar claims by power generating companies under other power purchase agreements, especially where disputes exist over fixed charges linked to declared availability.
The matter is expected to be closely watched by power utilities and generators alike, given its potential impact on tariff settlements and legacy payment disputes across the sector.
GMR Kamalanga claimed outstanding dues of around ₹280 crore for FY16 and FY17, arising from fixed or capacity charges linked to declared power availability. GRIDCO, however, has argued that it cannot be held liable for payments related to nearly 515 million units of power that were neither scheduled nor supplied during the disputed period.
In its appeal, GRIDCO has contended that the APTEL ruling is contrary to the provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed between the two parties. The company has maintained that capacity charges should be payable only on the basis of power actually scheduled and drawn, and not merely on the basis of declared availability.
Read more: SJVN arm, GRIDCO to form JV for green energy projects in Odisha
The company also stated that it has already paid about ₹100 crore under protest, even as it disputes its liability for the remaining amount.
The dispute stems from a September 3, 2025, judgment by APTEL dismissing GRIDCO’s appeals and upholding earlier Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) orders.
The tribunal ruled that fixed or capacity charges must be calculated in accordance with the CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014, based on the generator’s declared capacity, irrespective of whether the power was scheduled or consumed.
Read more: Supreme Court orders equal sharing of coal shortage costs among DISCOMs
APTEL held that statutory tariff regulations override contractual provisions in cases of inconsistency, and that under the availability-based tariff regime, generators are entitled to recover capacity charges for making power available, independent of actual drawal. It also upheld the levy of delayed payment surcharge in line with the PPA.
GMR Kamalanga operates a 1,050 MW coal-based thermal power plant in Odisha’s Dhenkanal district, while GRIDCO acts as the bulk power procurement agency for state distribution companies.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the appeal could have wider implications for the power sector. If the APTEL order is upheld, it could potentially open the door for similar claims by power generating companies under other power purchase agreements, especially where disputes exist over fixed charges linked to declared availability.
The matter is expected to be closely watched by power utilities and generators alike, given its potential impact on tariff settlements and legacy payment disputes across the sector.
