https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458650 A state utility could not withdraw its approval application for a continuation agreement after the counterparty had altered its position and invested on the basis of long-standing assurances that the entire generated power would be procured. The withdrawal, sought after hearing and reservation of orders, was treated as inconsistent with earlier conduct, prejudicial to the counterparty, and contrary to public interest. The regulatory commission was also required to examine the tariff petition independently on merits, because approval of the arrangement and determination of tariff and capital cost remain subject to statutory scrutiny for fairness, reasonableness, and consistency with the regulatory framework. The merits-based tariff and capital cost issues therefore had to be decided by the State Commission. en-us Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2024 08:52:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458650 A state utility could not withdraw its approval application for a continuation agreement after the counterparty had altered its position and invested on the basis of long-standing assurances that the entire generated power would be procured. The withdrawal, sought after hearing and reservation of orders, was treated as inconsistent with earlier conduct, prejudicial to the counterparty, and contrary to public interest. The regulatory commission was also required to examine the tariff petition independently on merits, because approval of the arrangement and determination of tariff and capital cost remain subject to statutory scrutiny for fairness, reasonableness, and consistency with the regulatory framework. The merits-based tariff and capital cost issues therefore had to be decided by the State Commission. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458650