The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has refused to intervene in the transfer of 2333 MW capacity of Azure Power India to Adani Green Energy Limited (AGEL) in the 7000 MW solar power project for Andhra Pradesh, which is at the heart of alleged bribery charges against billionaire Gautam Adani.

CERC, the principal regulator of power sector in India, has said in its 23-page order that it did not have the jurisdiction in the matter. In December 2021, a power supply agreement (PSA) was signed between SECI and Andhra Pradesh discoms for 7000 MW of power, of which 4666 MW had to be supplied by AGEL and 2333 MW by Azure Power Limited. A power purchase agreement to this effect was signed between SECI and AGEL and another between SECI and Azure. This was approved in April 2022 by CERC. However, Azure Power backed out of this and its part of 2333 MW was transferred to AGEL.

In December 2023 a supplemental PSA was signed between SECI and Andhra Pradesh which transferred this capacity making total power to be supplied by AGEL to 7000 MW. SECI had approached CERC to “take on record” this supplemental PSA. This order gives a breather to N Chandrababu Naidu government in Andhra Pradesh. While Naidu has been ambivalent over operationalizing the power purchase agreement, with this order it does not necessarily have to buy at least 2333 MW without CERC sanction. SECI had approached CERC with the petition, “In the facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to take on record PPAs dated 26.12.2023 (11 in number) and PAAs dated 13.03.2024 (3 in number) executed between SECI and Adani for cumulative 2333 MW capacity and the Supplemental PSA dated 29.12.2023 and Supplemental PSA-2 dated 01.03.2024 executed between SECI and AP Discoms and Government of Andhra Pradesh.”

As the matter became controversial with the US indictment and bribery charges, CERC had reserved its order last year. However, now it has said that it did not have the powers to intervene. “After careful consideration of the submissions made by the Petitioner, we observe that the Petitioner has not invoked the jurisdiction of the Commission with regard to the regulation of the tariff of the generating company under Section 79 (1) (b). The only prayer made the Petitioner is to take on record the substitution of one generator with another…” CERC observed.

The Commission said in its order, “… SECI has not indicated the provisions of the Act under which the Commission is mandated to consider such substitution. Moreover, SECI has not even made any such prayer in the Petition for approval of the Commission for the substitution of Azure with Adani on record, the only prayer being to take subsequent developments on record.” CERC refused to intervene saying, “In view of the above, the Commission has not been called upon to exercise either its regulatory or adjudicatory function in the present matter, deserving any intervention in this case.”