The Commission, however, held that stipulating capacity generation and financial eligibility criteria is a standard practice in tenders, and cannot be considered anti-competitive merely because the market may be having a large number of smaller players as well. It noted that the tender is designed according to specific requirements of the procurer.
Regarding the clubbing of solar power plants with solar manufacturing, the Commission noted SECI’s reply that “the said tender was floated three times, after having been annulled twice in 2019. This establishes the intent and objective of the Government to promote domestic manufacturing and reduce export dependency. Unlike the Production linked Incentive (PLI) Scheme offered at present, in the Manufacturing linked Solar Scheme launched during 2018 and 2019, the only incentive offered to the prospective bidders/ developers was by the means of offering solar power plant capacity only corresponding to solar manufacturing plant capacity.”
The Commission also observed that capacity allocation was carried out through a transparent tariff-based competitive bidding process followed by e-reverse auction. It said the downward revision in tariffs by successful bidders was not contrary to any law and, in fact, benefited end consumers through lower prices.
Regarding the allegation of abuse of dominant position by the Adani Group, the Commission held that “as the power generation market in India is comprised of many significant players like NTPC, Power Grid Corp. of India Ltd., Tata Power Co. Ltd., Torrent Power and Reliance Power, the Adani Group, prima facie, does not seem to be a dominant player in the power generation market in India. Even in the ‘power generation from renewable sources’ market, other prominent players like Tata Power, JSW Energy and Suzlon Energy are also operating.”
On allegations of bribes to government officials to facilitate power sale agreements between SECI and buying utilities, thereby enabling Adani Green Energy to secure power purchase agreements, the Commission said such conduct does not qualify as abusive (either exclusionary or exploitative) within the meaning of Section 4 (relating to abuse of dominance) of the Competition Act, 2002.
Based on these and other findings, the Commission said there is no prima facie case of contravention of provisions of Sections 3 (relating to anti-competitive agreements) and 4 of the Act warranting an investigation.
This content is protected by copyright and may not be reused. If you want to cooperate with us and would like to reuse some of our content, please contact: editors@pv-magazine.com.
By submitting this form you agree to pv magazine using your data for the purposes of publishing your comment.
Your personal data will only be disclosed or otherwise transmitted to third parties for the purposes of spam filtering or if this is necessary for technical maintenance of the website. Any other transfer to third parties will not take place unless this is justified on the basis of applicable data protection regulations or if pv magazine is legally obliged to do so.
You may revoke this consent at any time with effect for the future, in which case your personal data will be deleted immediately. Otherwise, your data will be deleted if pv magazine has processed your request or the purpose of data storage is fulfilled.
Further information on data privacy can be found in our Data Protection Policy.