GRIDCO moves Supreme Court against APTEL order on ₹280 crore dues to GMR Kamalanga

GRIDCO Ltd has approached the Supreme Court challenging an order from the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) that directs the Odisha government-owned power trader to pay substantial dues to GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. The dispute involves outstanding amounts for the period from April 2015 to March 2017, with significant implications for the broader power sector.

Dispute Details and Financial Impact

The core of the dispute revolves around GMR Kamalanga's claim for outstanding dues totaling approximately ₹280 crore for FY16 and FY17. These dues arise from fixed or capacity charges linked to declared power availability during the contested period.

GRIDCO's Position and Arguments

GRIDCO has maintained 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. The company argues that the APTEL ruling contradicts the provisions of the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) signed between the two parties.

The power trader contends that capacity charges should be payable only based on power actually scheduled and drawn, rather than merely on declared availability. Despite disputing its liability, GRIDCO has already paid approximately ₹100 crore under protest while challenging the remaining amount.

APTEL's Ruling and Regulatory Framework

The dispute stems from a September 3, 2025 judgment by APTEL, which dismissed GRIDCO's appeals and upheld earlier Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) orders. The tribunal established several key principles:

• Fixed or capacity charges must be calculated according to CERC Tariff Regulations, 2014
• Charges should be based on the generator's declared capacity, regardless of whether power was scheduled or consumed
• Statutory tariff regulations override contractual provisions in cases of inconsistency
• Under the availability-based tariff regime, generators are entitled to recover capacity charges for making power available, independent of actual drawal

APTEL also upheld the levy of delayed payment surcharge in line with the PPA terms.

Sector-Wide Implications

The Supreme Court's decision on this appeal could have broader ramifications for the power sector. If the APTEL order is upheld, it may potentially create precedent for similar claims by power generating companies under other power purchase agreements, particularly where disputes exist over fixed charges linked to declared availability.

GMR Kamalanga operates a 1,050 MW coal-based thermal power plant in Odisha's Dhenkanal district, while GRIDCO functions as the bulk power procurement agency for state distribution companies. The matter is expected to be closely monitored by power utilities and generators across the sector, given its potential impact on tariff settlements and legacy payment disputes.

The case highlights the ongoing tension between contractual agreements and regulatory frameworks in India's power sector, with significant financial implications for both power producers and state-owned distribution entities.