Regulatory Updates

APTEL delivers several orders reinforcing regulatory discipline

Author: PPD Team Date: November 11, 2025

A judge’s wooden gavel resting on a circular block on a table, symbolizing legal ruling and regulatory decisions.

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has issued several recent rulings involving tariff reviews, procedural limits, and compliance with regulatory timelines. The decisions span cases from state utilities to renewable developers and industrial consumers, reaffirming core principles under electricity law and tariff regulation.

APTEL upholds RERC’s disallowance of RRVUNL’s additional capital cost claims

APTEL has dismissed a review petition by Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RRVUNL), affirming earlier regulatory decisions that rejected its claims for additional capital expenditure at several thermal units. The order, dated November 8, 2025, confirms that investment deadlines under tariff regulations must be strictly followed. RRVUNL had sought additional capitalization for FY 2014-15 and FY 2015-16 for units at Kalisindh, Suratgarh, and Chhabra plants. The Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC) had earlier ruled that the claims were filed long after the regulatory cut-off dates. APTEL agreed that RRVUNL neither sought an extension nor demonstrated any regulatory error, reiterating that generators must seek timely approval for post-deadline costs.

APTEL rejects IPCL review on power accounting sequence dispute

APTEL has dismissed a review petition by Investment & Precision Castings Ltd (IPCL), maintaining its earlier judgment on the order of accounting electricity from multiple sources. The ruling, dated November 3, 2025, finalizes the sequence for captive consumers using wind and open access power. IPCL, a consumer of Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL), operates two captive wind turbines and procures short-term open access power. APTEL’s 2024 judgment had held that captive wind energy should be accounted first, followed by open access and then supply from the distribution licensee. The tribunal said IPCL’s review was not based on any patent error but merely reflected disagreement with the outcome.

APTEL dismisses KDHP appeals, upholds KSERC’s treatment of surplus funds

APTEL has rejected two appeals by Kanan Devan Hills Plantations Company Ltd (KDHP) challenging the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (KSERC) truing-up orders for FY 2016-17 and FY 2017-18. The order, dated November 3, 2025, upheld the regulator’s decision to levy notional interest on the surplus from KDHP’s licensed electricity distribution business. KDHP argued that the surplus was only notional and intertwined with its plantation accounts. APTEL held that the issue was settled by its 2012 ruling, which required separation of distribution business accounts and the return of any regulatory surplus for consumer benefit. The tribunal found no reason to deviate from that precedent.

APTEL bars TSPL from adding new claims in appeal against PSPCL

APTEL has dismissed an application by Talwandi Sabo Power Ltd (TSPL) seeking to introduce a new Rs 336 crore deemed generation claim into an ongoing appeal against Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd (PSPCL). The order, dated November 3, 2025, emphasized that appeals cannot be expanded beyond their original pleadings. TSPL, which operates a 1980 MW plant in Punjab, alleged that coal shortages in 2014 caused loss of generation. The tribunal criticized the company for combining unrelated requests for urgent hearing and new claims in one application. It ruled that the deemed capacity issue was separate, had already been referred to arbitration, and was “totally alien” to the current appeal.

APTEL rejects IREDA review in Kerala solar tariff case

APTEL has dismissed a review petition filed by the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency (IREDA) concerning the tariff for a 50 MW solar project in Kasaragod, Kerala. The order, dated November 10, 2025, upheld the tribunal’s earlier judgment that fixed the tariff at Rs 3.83 per unit. IREDA argued that its counsel had incorrectly stated during the 2022 hearing that the company would not pursue inclusion of Rs 25.38 crore paid to Renewable Power Corporation of Kerala Limited (RPCKL). The tribunal ruled that the error stemmed from IREDA’s own failure to present complete facts and documents during the original proceedings. It held that a review cannot correct an outcome caused by a party’s procedural lapse.

The featured photograph is for representation only.

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *