#cercorder

[energylineindia1]

 Power tariff analysis India: interim hydro tariff cut reflects tougher cost scrutiny

This Power tariff analysis India captures a notable shift in how interim tariffs are being treated for delayed generation assets. The power regulator has restricted interim recovery to 75 percent of claimed charges for a large hydro project, citing unusually high financing costs linked to prolonged construction delays.

In this Power tariff analysis India, the emphasis lies on protecting consumers from premature exposure to potentially imprudent costs. Interest during construction accumulated over more than a decade has significantly inflated the project’s capital base. The regulator has therefore opted to withhold higher recovery until a detailed prudence review is completed.

Distribution companies tied to the project benefit from reduced interim billing. This lowers short-term cash outgo and limits immediate tariff pressure. Any future recovery will depend on final adjudication, keeping uncertainty contained for now.

For the generator, the ruling constrains cash inflows during the early operational phase. However, partial recovery ensures that plant operations remain financially viable while regulatory scrutiny continues. The order reinforces expectations that generators must justify cost escalation rather than rely on standard interim norms.

Across NHPC hydro projects, the message is clear. Time overruns and financing inefficiencies will attract closer examination. The decision fits within a wider pattern seen across Hydropower projects India, where legacy delays are no longer automatically accommodated in tariffs.

Such outcomes increasingly feature in Indian Electricity Tariff Reports, reflecting a more cautious regulatory stance. EnergylineIndia.com provides structured coverage of these shifts, focusing on their impact on utilities, generators, and consumers,  Hydro Power, Tariff Regulation, CERC Order.

[energylineindia1]

 Wind power projects at 50 MW can’t use grid code to rewrite PPA milestones

 Wind power projects are often designed to be commissioned turbine-by-turbine, but CERC has drawn a firm line for projects sitting at exactly 50 MW. On 27 January 2026, the regulator rejected Powerica Ltd’s plea to allow phased commissioning of its 50 MW wind project in Gujarat in tranches below 50 MW.

The request was framed as a relaxation of Regulation 22(3)(c) of the Indian Electricity Grid Code (IEGC), 2023. Under this rule, the first trial run must be conducted for an aggregated minimum capacity of 50 MW. Only projects above 50 MW are allowed to stage subsequent trial runs in smaller batches. Powerica argued that its commissioning sequence required smaller blocks, but the project size left no regulatory room.

CERC’s core message was contractual. The Commission held that power purchase agreement conditions cannot be bypassed through grid code relaxation. Any flexibility on trial runs or early commissioning has to originate inside the PPA structure, not through an after-the-fact petition.

For analysts watching Wind power projects, this order changes how “50 MW” should be read in schedules and risk notes. This is also relevant Indian Power news for EPC teams and financiers checking milestone triggers. For Onshore wind projects, it clarifies that grid-code procedure will not be used to rewrite contract milestones. EnergylineIndia.com has the verified breakdown, including what this means for compliance planning across Wind power projects and documentation discipline for Wind power projects at the 50 MW edge, Wind Power, Regulation, CERC Order, Grid Code, Renewable Energy, PPA.

[energylineindia1]

Wind power developer order-watch: CERC prioritises PPA over grid code relaxation

Wind power developer petitions for tranche-wise commissioning hit a hard limit at CERC on 27 January 2026. The regulator refused to relax Indian Electricity Grid Code 2023 trial-run requirements where the governing power purchase agreement fixes the first commissioning threshold.

Powerica Ltd sought relaxation of Regulation 22(3)(c) to commission its 50 MW wind project in Devbhumi Dwarka, Gujarat, in tranches smaller than 50 MW. The company wanted trial runs and commissioning in batches of at least 10 MW, arguing that a phased construction sequence would otherwise leave ready turbines idle. The Wind power developer cited early revenue, integration risk control, and quicker green power injection during high-wind periods. UPPCL, the off-taker under a SECI-backed arrangement, conveyed conditional consent to off-take part-commissioned power, subject to CERC approval.

CERC anchored its decision in the PPA signed with SECI on 13 June 2024. Article 5.7 permits part commissioning, but states that the minimum capacity for acceptance of the first part is 50 MW. Only after that first 50 MW can later parts be accepted in blocks of at least 10 MW. The Commission also noted that another grid code clause already permits different trial-run capacities if the PPA provides for them. Here, the Wind power developer was bound by its own contract.For each Wind power developer, the compliance lesson is clear. If phased energisation is needed for Onshore wind projects, it must be built into contracting before award. EnergylineIndia.com tracks these Power sector reforms and how they shape commissioning risk for developers, Wind Project, CERC Order, SECI, UPPCL, Commissioning, Compliance, Indian Power News.

[energylineindia1]

Power Regulator

A recent Central Electricity Regulatory Commission order has reinforced a strict boundary between commercial power sale arrangements and transmission access frameworks, an issue of sustained focus for every POWER REGULATOR observer. The Commission rejected Avikiran Solar India Pvt Ltd’s request to align the start of its Long-Term Access with a revised SECI commissioning schedule, holding that such alignment has no basis under the access regime.

The dispute arose when CTUIL operationalised ASIPL’s LTA once the ISTS became available, even though the project’s COD had been delayed under SECI-approved force majeure extensions. ASIPL argued that transmission charges should not accrue during this pre-COD gap and sought relief through waiver and relaxation provisions. The POWER REGULATOR was unmoved.

CERC clarified that LTA commencement is governed solely by the access grant and system readiness. PPA extensions—no matter how valid—do not rewrite LTA timelines. Once access is operationalised, liability follows. This interpretation is consistent with how the POWER REGULATOR has treated similar disputes across renewable portfolios.

The ruling also closed the door on using ISTS waivers as a pre-COD shield. According to the Commission, waivers apply only after generation and supply begin, not during periods when access exists but generation does not. Requests to invoke relaxation powers were rejected, with the POWER REGULATOR finding no regulatory hardship warranting intervention.Commercially, the order carries weight. CTUIL invoices exceeding Rs 6 crore were upheld, confirming that early access decisions can create material exposure. For developers and lenders alike, the POWER REGULATOR has sent an unambiguous message: align access applications with realistic construction timelines, because the framework does not pause for project delays, Power regulator, CERC LTA ruling, SECI wind projects, ISTS waiver interpretation, transmission tariff liability.

[energylineindia1]

Power Regulator

  The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has delivered a clear message on tariff discipline, with the POWER REGULATOR refusing to allow legacy transmission assets to drive higher future charges. In its Jhajjar–Mundka transmission line order, CERC approved nil additional capital expenditure for both past and future tariff periods, firmly anchoring tariffs to actual investment.

The Jhajjar–Mundka 400 kV line, operational for over ten years, was assessed as a mature asset. With no new capex claimed by the owner, the POWER REGULATOR concluded that tariff recovery must taper in line with declining loan balances and depreciation schedules. The approved capital cost remains frozen, and annual fixed charges decline steadily through FY 2029.

This ruling underscores how the POWER REGULATOR views cost-plus regulation: additional capital expenditure is not a procedural formality but a substantive test of necessity, prudence, and verifiability. Routine upkeep or asset ageing cannot be repackaged as capital investment.

For beneficiaries, including discoms in Delhi and Haryana, the decision translates into lower embedded network costs and improved predictability in power procurement planning. Indirectly, the discipline exercised by the POWER REGULATOR reduces pressure on retail electricity tariffs in urban consumption centres.

The order also carries wider implications. Many interstate transmission assets commissioned during the 2008–2013 build-out phase are now in late-life recovery stages. CERC’s approach signals that future truing-up cases will not accommodate tariff inflation absent fresh investment.

For the sector, the message is unambiguous: without new assets, there will be no new tariff recovery, Power regulator, CERC tariff order, transmission tariff decline, ISTS regulation, electricity tariff discipline.

[energylineindia1]

Power regulator

A major clarification has emerged from India’s power regulator, which has reworked the FY19 hydro shortfall computation for JSW Hydro Energy Ltd. The revised entitlement—Rs 20.36 crore—marks a Rs 6.27-crore reduction, following APTEL’s finding that the power regulator had inconsistently applied DSM offsets in earlier cases. By mandating uniform treatment, the remand forced CERC to recast the figures in line with current regulatory practice.

In the updated computation, the power regulator acknowledges that JSW Hydro injected 35.97 MUs of unscheduled DSM energy. Since DSM-settled injection is actual grid-delivered energy, it must be counted when measuring saleable output under hydro design-energy rules. This reduces the shortfall quantum from 152.80 MUs to 116.83 MUs.

The ruling directs JSW Hydro to refund the excess within one week, benefiting PSPCL and other state beneficiaries. Beyond the monetary impact, the power regulator has clarified a larger principle: DSM-accounted injections cannot be ignored in determining recoverable shortfall. This elevates consistency, predictability and regulatory discipline across hydro tariff cases.For observers tracking sector jurisprudence, the order positions the power regulator as aligning firmly with APTEL’s guidance on DSM-linked energy realism, Power Regulator, CERC Order, Hydro Tariff, DSM Adjustment, Energyline India.