Author: PPD Team Date: 04/03/2025
APTEL rejects Hubli Electricity Supply’s plea against KERC’s tariff order
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has dismissed the petition filed by Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited, which challenged the June 15, 2021, order of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC).
The appeal contested the mechanism used by KERC to determine incremental tariff to offset the financial impact of a change in law event affecting the first respondent’s power project. APTEL clarified that since the original tariff was determined under Section 63 of the Electricity Act through competitive bidding, KERC could not use the same process to determine the incremental tariff. Instead, it had to step outside Section 63 for this purpose.
Hubli Electricity Supply argued that while the first respondent sought Rs 317.58 million as compensation, KERC’s tariff determination would result in Rs 673.03 million, which it claimed was excessive. However, APTEL rejected this argument, noting that the compensation would not be paid upfront but through a tariff increase of Rs 0.39 per kWh over 22 years. The commission factored in the time value of money over this period, making the total receivable amount higher than the originally sought compensation.
Finding no errors in KERC’s order, APTEL dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit.
Petition No: APPEAL No. 245 of 2023 | Read the full order here.
TNERC approves TNPDCL’s short-term power procurement tender
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) has approved Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited’s (TNPDCL) petition to float a tender for procuring round-the-clock (RTC) and peak-hour power from February 1, 2025, to May 31, 2025, under a short-term tender through the DEEP Portal.
TNERC noted that Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited (TANGEDCO) proceeded with the tender process immediately after filing the petition, leaving the commission with no choice but to approve it. The commission emphasized that prior approval is mandatory and warned against the practice of seeking approval retrospectively.
Despite this, considering the rising power demand and the need to avoid load shedding, TNERC approved the tender with a directive that TANGEDCO must seek approval well in advance in the future to allow proper regulatory review. The deviation from guidelines requested in the petition has also been ratified.
Petition No: M.P. No. 50 of 2024 | Read the full order here.
TNERC grants partial relief to SEPC Power in dispute with TNPDCL
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) has partly approved SEPC Power Private Limited’s petition against Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL). SEPC Power had sought to prevent TNPDCL from making deductions from its invoices related to the fixed capacity charges (FCC) and other components of the provisional capital cost under the power purchase agreement (PPA).
TNERC noted that SEPC had invested significant funds in the project and had financial commitments with banks. The commission observed that arbitrary deductions by TNPDCL, in violation of the PPA, could harm SEPC’s financial standing and reputation. As a result, TNERC ruled that SEPC was entitled to a prohibitory order preventing TNPDCL from making further deductions from both past and future invoices.
However, the commission rejected SEPC’s request for a declaratory ruling that TNPDCL’s deductions were illegal, stating that such relief could not be granted through an interlocutory application. Additionally, TNERC dismissed SEPC’s plea for TNPDCL to reimburse Rs 1.05 billion (Rs 1,049,491,860) already deducted from invoices, including those for May, June, and July 2024. The order clarified that SEPC could still pursue recovery of the deducted amount through proceedings already initiated on the Prapthi Portal.
Petition No: I.A.No.1 of 2024 in M.P. No. 6 of 2023 | Read the full order here.
APTEL rules in favor of Pudumjee Paper in dispute over wheeling charges
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has approved Pudumjee Paper Products Limited’s petition against the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (MERC) order dated October 24, 2018. The order had upheld the methodology used by Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) for levying wheeling and transmission charges.
APTEL found that MSEDCL had imposed these charges on the entire power quantum availed through short-term open access (STOA) at the injection point since January 2015. The company had billed Pudumjee Paper based on total open access capacity rather than actual power consumption. MERC had previously ruled in favor of MSEDCL, stating that the methodology was valid.
However, APTEL determined that MSEDCL’s approach violated the 2014 and 2016 Distribution Open Access (DOA) Regulations. It affirmed that wheeling charges should be levied only on the actual power drawn at the consumption end, not at the injection point.
The appeal has been allowed, and the case has been sent back to MERC for further orders in line with APTEL’s ruling.
Petition No: APPEAL No.66 OF 2019 | Read the full order here.
APTEL allows TPDDL’s plea on Rithala power plant cost recovery
The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has approved Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited’s (TPDDL) petition challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) decision to restrict the recovery of the Rithala Combined Cycle Power Plant (CCPP) cost through depreciation until the financial year 2017-18. TPDDL argued that since the plant’s useful life was considered 15 years, depreciation should be allowed over the same period rather than being limited to six years.
APTEL agreed with TPDDL, stating that it was inconsistent to allow depreciation recovery for only six years when the capital cost was determined based on a 15-year useful life. The tribunal noted that DERC had not reviewed or corrected its previous order, which had established the 15-year lifespan. Therefore, there was no justification for curtailing the depreciation period to six years.
As a result, APTEL has set aside DERC’s order and directed it to allow TPDDL to recover the full capital cost of the Rithala CCPP through depreciation over its 15-year useful life. The case has been sent back to DERC for necessary action.
Petition No: APPEAL No. 33 of 2020 | Read the full order here.
APERC dismisses Lyfius Pharma’s plea against APEPDCL’s additional charges
The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) has dismissed Lyfius Pharma Private Limited’s petition challenging Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited’s (APEPDCL) decision to levy double charges for recorded maximum demand (RMD) exceeding the contracted maximum demand (CMD). The charges, totaling Rs 425.03 million, were applied to Lyfius Pharma’s high-tension service connection (RJY-1906) in electricity bills from May to September 2024.
APERC ruled that the dispute was between a consumer and a licensee, whereas its authority under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003, extends only to disputes between licensees and generating companies. Since Lyfius Pharma filed the petition as a consumer, APERC stated it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
The commission dismissed the petition and advised the company to seek resolution through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum or the Vidyut Ombudsman.
Petition No: O.P. No. 5 of 2025 | Read the full order here.
Featured photograph is for representation only.
