#powerregulator

[energylineindia1]

Open Access Consumers case sees CSERC reject contempt route

Open Access Consumers tracking cross-subsidy surcharge cases should note CSERC’s 8 June 2026 order in Petition No. 14 of 2022. The Commission dismissed CSPDCL’s plea seeking action under Sections 142 and 146 of the Electricity Act against Bharat Aluminium Company. Open Access Consumers are affected because the case arises from a 27 July 2016 cross-subsidy-surcharge order linked to 2014-15 open-access power. EnergylineIndia.com highlights this update for readers tracking State electricity regulator orders and APTEL orders. CSERC reasoned that the dispute is already pending in Review Petition No. 04 of 2026, making contempt action inappropriate at this stage. The Commission granted CSPDCL liberty to refile later. Open Access Consumers should read the order as a procedural development rather than a final settlement of surcharge liability. The issue remains open because the review petition is still pending. Open Access Consumers disputes often involve multiple layers: original tariff or surcharge order, review proceedings, enforcement request and possible penalty action. Open Access Consumers should watch whether CSPDCL revives enforcement after the review matter is decided.

[energylineindia1]

Power regulator must track CSPGCL fuel-cost savings

Power regulator attention is needed after CSPGCL’s March 2026 FCA filings showed a net consumer-favourable fuel-cost adjustment of Rs. 13.33 crore. The filings cover Hasdeo TPS, Korba West TPP, DSPM and ABVTPS. Power regulator data shows three stations recording negative FCA because actual fuel costs were below tariff assumptions. HTPS showed negative FCA of Rs. 8.52 crore, KWTPP Rs. 5.26 crore and ABVTPS Rs. 2.35 crore. DSPM was the only outlier, with positive FCA of Rs. 2.80 crore. EnergylineIndia.com highlights this update for readers tracking State electricity regulator developments and News on Indian power sector. The technical point is important: negative FCA at HTPS and KWTPP occurred even though landed coal prices were higher than tariff assumptions, because coal GCV was better than the normative value. At ABVTPS, lower landed coal price drove the savings despite weaker GCV. Power regulator scrutiny matters because consumers do not get a refund cheque; the adjustment is normally reflected in later electricity bills. The filings do not disclose the exact pass-through timeline. Power regulator monitoring should therefore focus on CSPDCL billing treatment and cumulative settlement. Power regulator decisions will decide whether the benefit is real or only accounting, Power Regulator, CSPGCL, FCA, DISCOMs Latest News, Electricity Tariff.

[energylineindia1]

State electricity regulator must track CSPGCL negative FCA

State electricity regulator review of CSPGCL’s March 2026 fuel-cost filings could decide whether consumers actually receive the benefit of lower-than-approved fuel costs. FORMAT-I filings show three major coal stations recording negative FCA. State electricity regulator data shows HTPS with tariff ECR of Rs. 1.595/kWh and actual ECR of Rs. 1.420/kWh, resulting in negative FCA of Rs. 8.52 crore. KWTPP recorded negative FCA of Rs. 5.26 crore, while ABVTPS recorded negative FCA of Rs. 2.35 crore. Together, these three stations produced Rs. 16.13 crore of consumer-favourable adjustment. EnergylineIndia.com highlights this update for readers tracking News on Indian power sector and DISCOMs Latest News. DSPM partially offset the benefit with positive FCA of Rs. 2.80 crore, leaving net negative FCA of Rs. 13.33 crore. State electricity regulator scrutiny is important because FCA benefits are normally passed through in later billing cycles, not refunded directly. Coal quality played a major role at HTPS and KWTPP, where better GCV helped reduce effective fuel cost despite higher landed coal price. State electricity regulator review should track timing, billing adjustment and cumulative FCA settlement. State electricity regulator oversight will determine whether the Rs. 13.33 crore benefit reaches consumers, state Electricity Regulator, Fuel Cost Adjustment, CSPGCL, CSERC, Power Regulator, Power Regulator.

[energylineindia1]

Power regulator must examine Delhi’s 120% gas-cost gap

Power regulator review of Delhi’s gas-fired generation costs has become important after May 2026 Form-15 filings showed a large price gap for gas of similar quality. Pragati PS-III reported landed gas cost of Rs. 33.614/SCM at GCV of 9,480.985 Kcal/SCM. Power regulator filings for Pragati PS-I showed Rs. 69.860/SCM at 9,456.345 Kcal/SCM, while GTPS showed Rs. 74.583/SCM at 9,458.052 Kcal/SCM. EnergylineIndia.com highlights this update for readers tracking DISCOMs Latest News and News on Indian power sector. The quality variation is tiny, but the cost variation is huge. Domestic gas explains part of the gap because Pragati PS-III received 41,778.251 thousand SCM of domestic gas, while GTPS and Pragati PS-I received none. However, the difference between the two fully imported-gas stations remains unexplained. Power regulator scrutiny is needed because fuel costs can flow into tariffs through energy charge pass-throughs. The filings do not show supplier names, contract type, pricing formula or separate transportation charges. Power regulator benchmarking should compare station-level fuel costs before allowing full recovery. Power regulator action could decide whether Delhi consumers pay for avoidable procurement premiums, Power Regulator, Gas Cost, Delhi Electricity, DISCOMs Latest News.

[energylineindia1]

Power Regulator

India has 1,236 MW of hydro capacity stalled, and the dominant reasons are not engineering failures. Litigation, financing freezes, and access constraints are keeping near-complete assets idle, raising uncomfortable questions for planners and lenders. This is exactly where the POWER REGULATOR view shifts from technology to governance.

A review of stalled projects shows courts and clearances as the primary choke points. Status quo orders, land disputes, and environmental litigation have blocked construction for years even where physical progress is substantial. Financing is the next barrier. Developers cite exhausted debt limits, lack of long-tenor funding, and lender reluctance to refinance hydro with unresolved legal and regulatory overhangs. Cost overruns, often delay-driven, erode viability and deepen stress. Access and evacuation dependencies add another layer, where roads and transmission linkages lag behind generation completion, leaving assets stranded and increasing the need for POWER REGULATOR attention on coordination.

In contrast, commissioning momentum returned in December 2025. Subansiri Lower and Tehri Pumped Storage units lifted FY26 hydro additions to 3,120 MW by end-December. But the state sector remains a drag, with multiple projects pushed into FY27 timelines.

The forward-looking pipeline tells a bigger story. Pumped storage is now nearly half of all hydro capacity under construction, with private developers leading PSP build-out and using flexibility value as the commercial anchor. This pivot toward storage will reshape dispatch patterns and planning assumptions, and it will increasingly sit under the POWER REGULATOR spotlight, Power Regulator, Stalled Hydro, India PSP, Hydro Commissioning, Grid Planning.

Read the full verified update on EnergylineIndia.com.

[energylineindia1]

Power regulator

A powerful precedent has emerged from Appeal No. 418 of 2023, where APTEL overturned penalties on a 1 MW farmer solar project, reshaping expectations from a Power regulator in government-driven schemes. The Tribunal held that when state departments themselves cause uncertainty—here, a 14-month delay in land conversion—developers cannot be punished. A Power regulator must account for such force majeure situations rather than apply the PPA mechanically.

The judgment highlights that multiple government bodies were unsure of which law governed the land parcel, a systemic failure acknowledged through ministerial meetings and circulars. APTEL ruled that a Power regulator cannot ignore this context and cannot treat administrative paralysis as a developer default.

GESCOM’s six-month extension was found valid and binding. APTEL stated that farmers cannot be expected to challenge or revalidate a utility’s written approval before the Power regulator.

On tariff, APTEL stopped short of restoring the Rs 8.40/kWh rate. Instead, it has asked the Power regulator to conduct a focused inquiry into cost crystallisation prior to 1 January 2017. This ensures fairness without expanding the scope of tariff review.Overall, the ruling strengthens protections for small developers and demands that a Power regulator offer policy-sensitive interpretation rather than strict formalism, Power Regulator, APTEL Ruling, Solar Policy Karnataka, Farmer Solar, Energyline India.

[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.

[energylineindia1]

 Power regulator

India’s power regulator has issued a Staff Paper that directly challenges the long-standing LoA-based connectivity model, identifying 31.8 GW of granted capacity with no PPA movement and 45.34 GW when pending applications are added. The proposal marks a structural response to speculative holding, stalled PPAs and under-utilised transmission assets—an issue increasingly defining India’s power regulator debates on renewable evacuation.

CERC introduces a decisive 12-month threshold where developers must sign PPAs or shift into one of three pathways: retain connectivity with steep milestones, substitute LoAs with new PPAs, or surrender capacity entirely. The milestone-linked pathway demands new PBGs, land proof within 12 months, financial closure within 15 months and COD within 18 months, alongside daily extension charges. These reflect the power regulator tightening accountability across ISTS connectivity.

A second reform creates an auction-led reallocation system, with base prices set at Rs 3 lakh/MW and reinforced through earnest money deposits and 10% PBGs. Commissioning deadlines are 12 months for ready substations and 24 months for future ones, aligning grid access with ISTS connectivity reforms and real execution readiness.

Finally, the Staff Paper hints at a complete departure from LoA routes, with future connectivity possibly restricted purely to PPAs or auction-based allocation—an ambitious step by the power regulator to synchronise renewable build-out with firm commitments, Power Regulator, ISTS Reforms, Renewable Policy, Energyline India.

Read the full verified update on EnergylineIndia.com.