What sectors does Growthifye cover?

We work across the clean-energy value chain — utility-scale solar and wind, battery energy storage (BESS), power transmission networks, and the green financing structures that fund them.

Do you handle both engineering and financing?

Yes. Our differentiator is combining engineering-led advisory and EPC with an in-house green financing and debt syndication desk, so technical and financial workstreams stay aligned all the way to financial close.

Can you support transmission and grid connection?

Absolutely. We engineer HV substations and transmission lines, run grid connection and evacuation studies, and manage the interface with utilities and grid operators.

What does green financing include?

Sustainability-linked loans, green debt, blended finance and non-recourse project finance — structured, syndicated and negotiated to secure competitive, long-tenor capital.

How do we start working with you?

Share your project or mandate through the contact form or WhatsApp. We'll set up a discovery call and outline a tailored engagement across advisory, engineering, EPC or financing.

All MERC orders

Original order PDF

GROWTHIFYE ONE-PAGER·MERC · Maharashtra·MYT·Case 104 of 2020·Order dated 2020-07-18

MERC dismissed AEML-T's review petition; upheld treatment of actual Interest on Working Capital (IoWC) as Nil for FY2017-18 & FY2018-19 in MYT truing-up

Case of Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited (Transmission) seeking review of certain aspects of Multi Year Tariff (MYT) Order dated 30 March 2020 in Case No. 297 of 2019

Background · what was sought

AEML-T sought review of MERC's MYT Order dated 30 March 2020 (Case 297/2019), which trued-up ARR for FY2017-18 & FY2018-19 and set 4th MYT Control Period ARR (FY2020-25). AEML-T argued the Commission wrongly treated actual IoWC as 'Nil' for pre-acquisition years (when Mumbai Transmission was under RInfra), inflating 'efficiency gains' shared with consumers and reducing AEML-T's entitlement. AEML-T submitted fresh Statutory Auditor certificates (June/July 2020) apportioning RInfra's consolidated working capital interest across Generation/Transmission/Distribution/Other businesses to claim actual IoWC of Rs.2.25 Cr (FY18) and Rs.1.92 Cr (FY19), seeking higher net entitlement.

What the Commission decided

Review Petition filed under Regulation 85 dismissed in entirety; Impugned MYT Order upheld unchanged
Held new Auditor certificates (dated 22 June & 3 July 2020) did not qualify as 'new evidence' since they were created after and to support the review filing, not pre-existing undiscovered facts
Noted AEML-T itself had originally submitted to the Commission that actual IoWC was 'Nil' for the pre-AEML period, contradicting its own review claim
Found discrepancies between Petition figures and Auditor's Certificate figures for FY2017-18 (e.g., Working Capital Interest Rs.122.28 Cr matched, but Actual Drawn figures differed: Rs.960.49 Cr vs Rs.967.34 Cr)
No change made to approved IoWC expenses: Rs.1.97 Cr (FY2017-18) and Rs.2.41 Cr (FY2018-19) net entitlement stand, against AEML-T's claim of Rs.3.47 Cr and Rs.3.18 Cr respectively
Ruled the review petition was filed within limitation (Supreme Court COVID extension applied), but failed on merits under Regulation 85(a)

Way forward agreed by the Commission

Case No.104 of 2020 dismissed; no further compliance or tariff revision required from this Order
AEML-T's underlying grievance on IoWC methodology remains linked to pending Appeal No.105 of 2019 before APTEL against MERC's original MTR Order in Case 201/2017
Approved ARR/IoWC figures from MYT Order dated 30 March 2020 (Case 297/2019) continue to apply without modification
No new compliance timeline set for AEML-T; existing MYT tariff schedule (FY2020-21 to FY2024-25) remains as approved in the parent MYT Order

What it means for C&I buyers, OA users & developers

• No direct tariff impact for C&I consumers/open-access users from this Order — approved transmission ARR and associated charges under the 4th MYT Control Period remain unchanged
• Reaffirms MERC's strict evidentiary bar for licensees claiming cost pass-throughs — actual costs (like IoWC) must be substantiated with contemporaneous documentary proof at the time of original tariff proceedings, not after decision via retrofitted certificates
• Signals to developers/licensees that post-facto auditor certificates created after an adverse order will not be accepted as 'new evidence' for review — reinforces predictability of trued-up ARR once approved
• Confirms efficiency-gain sharing mechanism (Regulation 31.6, MYT Regulations 2015) will continue to benefit consumers where licensees fail to prove actual costs, keeping transmission tariff components tighter for C&I open-access users

Growthifye take

This is a housekeeping dismissal with no tariff impact for buyers — MERC firmly closed a licensee's attempt to retroactively improve its allowed costs via after-the-fact auditor certificates. The bigger takeaway for developers and C&I consumers is procedural: MERC continues to enforce a high bar on 'new evidence' in reviews, rejecting documents manufactured post-order to support a claim already filed. This reduces regulatory risk of retrospective tariff creep and keeps transmission ARR stable for AEML-T's network users. Track the pending APTEL Appeal No.105/2019, as its outcome could still reopen the broader IoWC-treatment question across MERC licensees.

Growthifye does not take responsibility for the accuracy of this information. Values are compiled from tariff orders published on the websites of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions and distribution licensees (plus CEA / MoP / Grid-India), parsed automatically and shown with their source. Always verify against the signed order before any commercial decision. This one-pager is a Vidura-assisted summary of the official order; the signed order prevails.