Petition of SSDGCT seeking directions to MSEDCL for facilitating net metering to its installation and refund of monies charged by billing under gross metering modality along with applicable interest – EQ
Summary:
—
MERC – Case No. 219 of 2024 (SSDGCT vs. MSEDCL)**
—
## **1. Case Overview**
* Sou Sushila D. Ghodawat Charitable Trust (SSDGCT) filed a petition seeking:
* Net metering benefit during periods when Open Access (OA) was availed.
* Refund of **₹60.96 lakh** overcharged due to gross metering.
* Action under Section 142 for deliberate violation of DOA Regulations.
—
## **2. SSDGCT’s Key Facts & Claims**
* Consumer with 1050 kVA demand, rooftop solar of **748.8 kWp**, and partial OA from a 1.25 MW wind generator.
* Net metering was **approved in 2019** and implemented from July 2020 to Dec 2023.
* From Jan, Feb, Mar, Aug, Sept, Oct 2024 – **MSEDCL unilaterally shifted to gross metering** while OA was active.
* This caused large financial losses; net metering benefits were granted only in Apr–Jul 2024.
* No notice or justification was provided by MSEDCL.
* SSDGCT claims MSEDCL cannot deny net metering because of its own failure to implement DOA Amendment procedures in time.
—
## **3. MSEDCL’s Response**
* Argues SSDGCT’s OA applications were **not valid** under the DOA Second Amendment Regulations & GEOA Rules 2022.
* Claims Open Access was to be sought through MSLDC, not MSEDCL.
* States Regulation 3.4 is ambiguous, so gross metering was used.
* Asserts any error was unintentional and due to regulatory uncertainty.
* Refers to Case No. 232/2024 (its clarificatory petition) still pending before MERC.
—
## **4. SSDGCT’s Rejoinder**
* No regulation allows MSEDCL to change a net-metered system to gross metering.
* MSEDCL delayed implementing DOA 2023 by **10 months**, causing confusion for all consumers.
* MSEDCL issued STOA approvals themselves—therefore **cannot claim them invalid later**.
* SSDGCT cannot be penalized for MSEDCL’s failure to communicate process changes.
* Doctrine: *“No one can benefit from their own wrong.”*
—
## **5. Key Regulatory Interpretation by MERC**
### **a) Net Metering + Open Access is Allowed Post DOA Amendment 2023**
* DOA 2023 deleted the Gross Metering requirement for OA periods.
* Regulation 3.4 expressly permits **simultaneous rooftop net metering and OA**.
### **b) MSEDCL’s Delay Caused Compliance Issues**
* Circular implementing DOA 2023 issued **10 months late** (Sept 2024).
* This delay directly contributed to SSDGCT’s procedural missteps.
### **c) MSEDCL Issued OA Approvals**
* Since MSEDCL approved STOA for the months under dispute, they cannot later claim invalidity.
* Therefore, **net metering benefits cannot be denied**.
—
## **6. Precedent Case Applied**
* MERC refers to its own **Order dated 28 July 2025 in Case No. 197 of 2024**, where MSEDCL agreed to credit solar generation under net metering for a similar situation.
* MERC states **similar consumers must be treated alike**.
—
## **7. MERC’s Findings**
* SSDGCT is entitled to **net metering benefit** for all disputed months in 2024.
* Denial of net metering occurred due to MSEDCL’s own delay in implementing regulations.
* MSEDCL **cannot use regulatory ambiguity as a defense** for overbilling.
* Consumer should not suffer due to utility’s delay or unclear procedures.
—
## **8. Refund & Reconciliation**
* SSDGCT claimed ₹60.96 lakh refund but did not provide a detailed computation.
* MSEDCL also did not present calculations.
* MERC directs both parties to:
* **Reconcile the amount within 30 days**.
* Apply refund/credit in the very next billing cycle.
* Add interest at the **Bank Rate**.
—
## **9. Final Order**
1. **Petition Allowed** in favour of SSDGCT.
2. MSEDCL must:
* Reconcile and credit the refund amount within 30 days.
* Apply net-metering-based adjustments for all disputed months.
* Reflect reconciled credit in the next billing cycle.
—
For more information please see below link:
