- within Energy and Natural Resources topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations and Law Firm industries
- within Employment and HR, Real Estate and Construction and Technology topic(s)
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”), by its judgment dated 19.01.2026, in the matter of M/S JK Minerals v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.1, held that JK Minerals is entitled to compensation for electricity injected into the grid during the intervening period from 15.09.2017 to 10.05.2018, on account of the refusal of Long-Term Open Access (“LTOA”), and has directed payment of compensation at average power purchase costs (“APPC”) rates along with carrying cost.
JK Minerals approached the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“MPERC”) seeking LTOA for supply of power to a third-party consumer, which was initially denied by the distribution licensee on grounds of network congestion, despite the generator and consumer undertaking to restrict drawal within existing contract demand. During this period, JK Minerals commissioned its solar plant and injected power into the grid pending grant of LTOA, pursuant to a utility communication permitting injection free of cost until LTOA approval. MPERC initially rejected LTOA. On an appeal filed by JK Minerals, APTEL remanded the matter back to MPERC as the order passed by MPERC was cryptic and non-speaking. Upon remand, MPERC granted LTOA on the same conditions earlier proposed by the generator but refused compensation for the intervening period.
APTEL held that the generator had been deprived of revenue due to an earlier erroneous order of MPERC, and that the distribution licensee had consumed and benefited from the injected solar power without payment. Applying the principles of unjust enrichment and quasi-contract, APTEL held that the distribution licensee could not retain the benefit of such power without compensating the generator. Further, since the generator had agreed to inject power free of cost until grant of open access and no power purchase agreement (“PPA”) existed between the parties, APTEL directed compensation at APPC rates of the distribution licensee for the relevant period along with carrying cost at SBI PLR + 2%.
Footnote
1. Appeal No. 375 of 2019.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
