The applicant, a solar project supplier, sought damages of $1,468,293.40 from the respondent, the Independent Electricity System Operator, alleging ambiguity in the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) contracts regarding the '120% rule'.
The applicant argued it was permitted to use the Nominal Operating Cell Temperature (NOCT) rating rather than the Standard Test Conditions (STC) rating.
The court dismissed the application, finding no ambiguity in the contracts when read as a whole, and held that STC is the universally accepted standard in the solar industry.
The court also found the applicant was contractually precluded from claiming damages.
