Adani Power Maharashtra (APM), which operates 3,300 mw of thermal power plant Tiroda in the Vidarbha region, cannot escape from its responsibility to fully utilize the fly ash as per its commitment and action plan submitted to the union ministry of environment of forest (MoEF) while setting up its plant. APM will have to comply with the MoEF's notification issued on January 25, 2016 for full utilization of fly ash in a sustained manner. MERC had dismissed APM's petition seeking compensation under Change in Law in respect of the additional cost of fly ash transportation in compliance with MoEF's notification. APM had argued that it had complied with the requirements in force prior to the MoEF's notification and it used to dispose of the ash in various ways. However, in the event of MoEF's notification, APM had pleaded that MERC should direct the state electricity distribution company (MahaVitaran) to reimburse the ash transportation cost following MoEF's notification. When contacted APM declined to comment. However, MahaVitaran strongly opposed APM's plea saying that if the generator fails to utilize 100% fly ash within the stipulated period then it is the failure of the latter which cannot be passed on to the common consumer. MERC observed that APM could achieve 60.45% ash utilization by FY 2016-17 as against 1055 fly ash utilization level to be achieved by 4th year from commercial operation date (CoD). This is after considering FY 2012-13 as CoD of APM, the 4th year would be FY 2016-17. Further, till 2017-18, APM was able to achieve 80.69% utilization of fly ash and thus has clearly failed to comply with the application MoEF notification. Meanwhile, MERC has also rejected APM's another petition seeking review of earlier rejected petition of gross calorific value (GCV) and station heat rate (SHR) for increased financial allowance to offset the variation in coal received by them compared to the coal considered while bidding. The petition was also involving the Tiroda thermal power project. MERC in its earlier order had clearly ruled that the responsibility of quality of fuel in respect of competitive bidding (as per section 63 of Electricity Act, 2003) is with the bidder and in this case, it was APM's responsibility. The quality of coal is derived from GCV hence any change in GCV plus or minus decides the quantum of coal required to be burnt to generate 1 unit of energy. If the quality of coal is inferior to what has been considered while bidding then more coal will be needed to generate 1 unit of energy. APM in its petition had pleaded that the difference between assumed GVA and STR and received GCV & SHR should be compensated. Adani power plea Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission had dismissed APM’s petition seeking compensation under Change in Law in respect of the additional cost of fly ash transportation in compliance with MoEF’s notification.