MPERC rules Korba Power and PTC must jointly file the Unit-1 MYT tariff petition (FY25-29); MPPMCL to be Respondent, not co-petitioner
Petition No 128/2025, In the matter of petition filed by Korba Power Limited, under Section 94(1) of the Electricity Act, 2003 r/w Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 & Regulation 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2016 seeking review and modification of the Order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Hon\\\\\\\'ble Commission in Petition No: 55 of 2024. AND Petition No 129/2025, Joint Petition seeking permission to file Tariff Petition by Korba Power Ltd., and PTC India Ltd., and MP Power Management Co. Ltd.,
KPL operates a 2x300MW coal plant at Korba, Chhattisgarh; Unit 1 (300MW) supplies MPPMCL via PTC under a 2005 PPA/PSA (later modified by 2012 Settlement and Implementation Mechanisms). A joint MYT petition (55/2024) for control period FY2024-25 to FY2028-29 was disposed on 14.11.2024 as MPPMCL disputed being arrayed as co-petitioner and raised issues on additional capitalisation/NCLT-acquired project. Commission had directed parties to reach consensus before refiling. KPL filed a review petition (128/2025, with 349-day delay condonation) against that order, while all three parties simultaneously filed a fresh joint petition (129/2025) affirming MPERC's Section 64(5) jurisdiction and seeking permission for KPL to file the tariff petition with PTC/MPPMCL as Respondents.
- Held it is inappropriate for MPPMCL to be a co-petitioner since it is only the ultimate power purchaser/beneficiary, not a party undertaking the supply arrangement.
- Directed that KPL and PTC jointly file the MYT tariff petition for Unit 1 (300 MW) for control period FY2024-25 to FY2028-29.
- Directed MPPMCL be impleaded only as Respondent, entitled to file comments/objections on the tariff petition.
- Affirmed MPERC's jurisdiction under Section 64(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to determine this inter-state tariff.
- Noted substantial delay already incurred and directed KPL/PTC (who have already deposited fees) to file the fresh petition within two weeks.
- Disposed of both Petition No. 128/2025 (review) and Petition No. 129/2025 (joint petition), along with the IA for condonation of delay.
- KPL and PTC to jointly file MYT tariff petition for Unit 1 (300MW) within 2 weeks of 24.12.2025.
- MPPMCL to be impleaded as Respondent in the fresh petition and may file objections/comments on tariff parameters.
- Previously deposited fees by KPL and PTC to be adjusted/carried forward against the fresh petition.
- Commission to proceed with tariff determination for control period FY2024-25 to FY2028-29 once petition is filed.
- No further consensus-building required among the three parties before filing, since MPERC has now settled the petitioner/respondent structure.
- Both Petition 128/2025 and 129/2025 stand disposed - no separate review order needed.
- • MP procurers/distribution licensees (MPPMCL) will bear tariff impact of this Unit-1 (300MW) coal PPA once MYT is determined for FY24-29; C&I consumers sourcing via MP discoms should track this tariff order for potential power purchase cost pass-through.
- • Clarifies procedural precedent under Section 64(5): only the generator and trader (contracting parties) need be co-petitioners; the buying distribution licensee is impleaded as Respondent - relevant for other inter-state PPA/trading arrangements structured similarly.
- • Confirms MPERC's jurisdiction over inter-state generation-trading-distribution tariff chains where the distribution licensee is in MP - relevant precedent for other inter-state IPPs selling into MP via traders.
- • Expect the actual MYT tariff order (rates, capitalisation issues, NCLT-related claims) only after the fresh petition is filed and heard - this order is purely procedural/jurisdictional, not a tariff determination.
This is a purely procedural order resolving a three-year standoff on who should be petitioner vs respondent in Korba Power's Unit-1 MYT case - it does not determine any tariff number. For C&I buyers and developers, the real action starts once KPL-PTC file the fresh MYT petition (due within two weeks); that filing will surface capitalisation and NCLT-related cost claims MPPMCL contested earlier, which could move the landed tariff MPPMCL pays and eventually the pooled cost of power in MP. Track the fresh petition number and MPPMCL's objections closely - they will shape the actual tariff outcome for FY24-29.
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.