The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has dismissed a review petition filed by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) seeking revision of tariff for a 100 MW solar power project integrated with battery energy storage in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
SECI had challenged a September 2025 order, requesting an upward revision of the tariff to ₹4.22 per kWh, citing alleged calculation errors and cost exclusions in the original determination. The petition raised 11 separate grounds for reconsideration.
One of the key disputes involved an alleged double deduction of approximately ₹1.69 crore from the contract value. However, CERC, after reviewing the records, found no evidence of duplication and ruled that no clerical or computational error had occurred.
SECI also contested the exclusion of ₹3.88 crore in pre-project expenses, arguing that these costs should be included in the capital cost. The Commission rejected the claim, stating that sufficient documentary evidence had not been provided to justify inclusion of these expenditures.
Another major issue concerned a ₹66.6 crore Clean Technology Fund (CTF) grant. SECI argued that the grant was exclusively meant for the battery storage component and should not reduce the solar project’s capital cost. CERC, however, maintained that as per regulatory principles, all grants must be deducted from total project cost to ensure tariff accuracy and consumer protection.
The regulator also upheld its earlier decision on technical assumptions, including the disallowance of a 0.5% degradation factor, stating that existing regulations do not permit such adjustments.
On financial parameters, SECI had sought an interest rate of 10.57% on loans, while CERC had earlier approved 6.15% based on concessional World Bank financing. The Commission reiterated that concessional borrowing must be reflected in tariff determination to safeguard consumer interests while ensuring reasonable developer returns.
SECI’s attempt to introduce revised interest rate benchmarks based on later bond issuances was also rejected, with CERC noting that review petitions cannot be used to introduce new evidence or alter financial structures post-order.
The Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) opposed the petition, arguing that SECI had already approached the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) on the same matter, effectively attempting to re-litigate the case.
In its final ruling, CERC dismissed all 11 grounds raised by SECI, reaffirming that the scope of review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent errors and cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal. The original tariff order for the 100 MW solar-plus-storage project thus remains unchanged.
