#electricitytariff

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.

State electricity regulator scheduling in Haryana has drawn attention for its rapid public hearing circuit on new tariff petitions. Hearings are clustered within days across cities, while written objections must be filed in the first week of March.

This administrative structure compresses review time for stakeholders analysing Regulatory Assets and prior-year true-ups. Effective Power tariff analysis India requires detailed scrutiny of power purchase claims and deviation penalties. Filing summaries show these components are major drivers in the petitions.

Indian Electricity Tariff Reports indicate rising fuel costs and accumulated grid charges forming part of the requested revision. The pace adopted by the State electricity regulator limits the ability of intervenors to assess evidence presented at each hearing before the next session begins.

Consumer groups argue that partial document uploads reduce transparency. Recent DISCOMs Latest News has pointed to liquidity stress prompting accelerated tariff filings in several regions.

The debate centres on procedural fairness. A State electricity regulator must balance timely revenue approval with meaningful public participation. Compressed timelines risk narrowing scrutiny of complex cost pass-through mechanisms.EnergylineIndia.com tracks verified regulatory notices and updates from the State electricity regulator impacting tariff governance, Electricity Tariff, Regulatory Review, Energyline India, Power Economics, Due Process.

The sharp fall in Pragati Power Corporation Ltd’s gas bills between August–September and November 2025 offers a revealing case study for POWER TARIFF ANALYSIS INDIA. Invoice data shows the plant’s gas cost dropping by around 44% in a single quarter, driven entirely by a shift from RLNG-based supply to Non-APM diverted gas. There is no evidence of efficiency improvement or operational optimisation.

For those engaged in POWER TARIFF ANALYSIS INDIA, the message is clear: gas-based power tariffs remain structurally dependent on supply categorisation rather than plant performance. The same generating asset can oscillate between high-cost and relatively affordable operation purely due to administrative gas allocation.

Yet the relief is only partial. While the commodity component softened dramatically, pipeline transportation tariffs increased steadily, rising to about Rs 94.5 per MMBtu. These charges, regulated by PNGRB, apply uniformly across gas consumers and do not respond to commodity price cycles. This creates a one-way pressure point within POWER TARIFF ANALYSIS INDIA.

The invoices underline a deeper policy issue. Gas price volatility can occasionally favour generators, but transport tariffs quietly accumulate regardless of market direction. Over time, this erodes the benefit of cheaper gas and complicates tariff stability for power utilities and consumers.

As India leans on gas-based generation for flexibility and cleaner peaking power, POWER TARIFF ANALYSIS INDIA must grapple with this imbalance. Without regulatory attention on transport cost trajectories, gas risks becoming a fuel where headline price relief masks steadily rising embedded charges.

Uttar Pradesh’s FY 2025–26 LMV tariff schedule arrives with the appearance of continuity—unchanged slabs, familiar LMV categories and a steady rural–urban structure. But beneath this stable exterior lies a significant operational shift. The schedule, issued by UPPCL on behalf of all state DISCOMs, embeds UPERC’s determinations into a tariff framework engineered for compliance, not just pricing.

The document spans domestic, commercial, agricultural, institutional, EV charging and public lighting categories. While headline rates stay largely unchanged, the underlying philosophy moves away from simple retail structuring and toward stronger enforcement of consumer behaviour, contracted load discipline and metering integrity.

A Tariff Book Built for Enforcement

The FY26 schedule tightens rules around maximum demand (MD), penalties for exceeding contracted load and the long-debated kW-to-kVA conversion. Rounding rules, power factor norms and metering access requirements are spelled out with sharper precision than in previous years. For DISCOM executives, the intent is unmistakable: reduce under-reporting, clamp down on leakages and ensure measurable compliance at the field level.

Unmetered segments and inconsistent MD capture—areas historically linked to revenue loss—receive some of the strongest wording in the schedule. This transforms the FY26 LMV structure into a practical enforcement roadmap rather than a static rate card.

A Subtle Redesign of Subsidy Logic

While the Government of Uttar Pradesh continues supporting rural and agricultural consumers, the FY26 document draws a firmer link between subsidy recognition and verified metered consumption. Lifeline eligibility and category purity now matter more than ever, pushing DISCOMs to maintain cleaner databases and enforce accurate classification.

This quiet shift signals that subsidy optimisation will increasingly rely on data accuracy rather than broad policy assumptions.

Continuity for Consumers, Stricter Scrutiny for Everyone

Public institutions, street lighting systems, commercial users and EV charging operators see continuity in headline tariff levels. But oversight tightens across load reporting, TOD applicability and documentation standards. EV charging, in particular, receives clarity on category treatment without any promotional pricing—reflecting UPERC’s view that the segment must operate at system-cost parity.

A governance-level change also stands out: deemed franchisees are now bound by clearer reporting rules and penalties for non-disclosure, bringing them closer to the formal audit framework.

The Real Story: Discipline, Documentation and Data Integrity

FY26 does not reshape tariff levels—but it does reshape expectations. The new LMV schedule links tariff realisation to compliance discipline, accurate reporting and operational transparency. Uttar Pradesh has opted for a quieter tariff year on the surface, but a structurally consequential one underneath.

For a sector where financial health depends on field execution, FY26 may become the year when the tariff schedule moved from being a pricing document to becoming a governance instrument.

Madhya Pradesh’s distribution companies will apply a –2.23% Fuel and Power Purchase Adjustment Surcharge (FPPAS) for November 2025, following MPPMCL’s latest computation based on MPERC’s n-2 methodology.

The lower adjustment reflects softer procurement costs recorded in the reference month of September 2025, which forms the basis for the state’s monthly surcharge mechanism.

What Drove the Negative Adjustment?

According to the computation sheet:

Total power procurement: 8,991 MU

Bulk sales considered: 473 MU

Net energy base for surcharge: ~8,517 MU

Projected avg cost (FY): ₹3.66/kWh

Actual avg cost (Sept 2025): ₹3.53/kWh

The –₹0.13/kWh incremental power purchase cost, once adjusted for normative losses and the approved average billing rate of ₹7.14/kWh, results in the –2.23% FPPAS now being passed through to consumers.

Regulatory Loss Parameters Used

Inter-state transmission losses: 3.62%

Intra-state losses: 2.61%

Distribution loss factor: 15.47%

All three DISCOMs — MPPoorv, MPPaschim and MPUttar — have been instructed to apply the new surcharge immediately and publish the underlying computation sheet on their websites.

What This Means for Consumers and DISCOMs

A negative surcharge directly reduces November electricity bills, offering short-term relief to consumers.

For DISCOMs, however, it results in a tighter monthly revenue position. Still, MPERC’s Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) framework ensures that such month-to-month variations remain revenue-neutral across the control period, preserving financial balance despite temporary deviations.

Why This Matters

This month’s negative FPPAS highlights how changes in short-term procurement cost structure — especially market purchases and seasonal generation — can influence retail tariffs in real time. It also underscores the regulatory role of the n-2 methodology in smoothing volatility and ensuring transparency in the pass-through of power purchase costs.

APTEL’s latest ruling sends a powerful message to generating utilities: once new regulations come into force, compliance must shift fully to the updated framework. Transition periods may be challenging, but they cannot be used as a defence for procedural lapses.

What RRVUNL Argued

RRVUNL claimed that several units including Kota TPS Unit-7, Suratgarh TPS Unit-6, and Chhabra TPS Units 1 ,2 were conceived under the 2009 regulations but reached COD under the 2014 regime.

The utility said this created a “regulatory twilight zone” where final capital expenditure and closing activities couldn’t neatly match the 2014 cut-off provisions.

Why APTEL Rejected the Argument

APTEL held that once the 2014 Regulations became effective, all tariff petitions — even for ongoing projects — had to align with the new framework.

Key points APTEL highlighted:

No automatic exemption during regulatory transition

Compliance is a continuous responsibility

Documentation must match the prevailing code

Relaxation Clauses Not Automatically Applicable

RRVUNL cited Regulation 2(17), its proviso for extensions, and Regulation 94 (relaxation powers). However, APTEL found that:

RRVUNL never sought an extension formally

No evidence was submitted showing delays beyond control

Relaxation powers must be invoked through a reasoned petition

In short: exceptions cannot be claimed retroactively.

Tribunal’s Core Principle

Regulatory transition does not suspend regulatory compliance.

Once a new tariff regulation is notified:

Cut-off dates must be respected

Documentation must be aligned

Tariff claims must meet updated procedural requirements

Legacy project timelines do not override current obligations.

What This Means for the Power Sector

This ruling strengthens regulatory accountability:

No automatic grandfathering of past projects

No retrospective condonation without evidence

Stricter scrutiny of capital expenditure claims

Greater procedural discipline expected across utilities

It also reflects a consistent trend across regulatory bodies and tribunals in India.

Gujarat keeps the 7–11 AM To U morning peak not because the data proves a peak exists, but because removing it risks creating one.

APTEL wanted a clean, fresh, empirical re-evaluation of the morning peak classification.

Because when you look at load data in Gujarat 7–11 AM does not display a conventional peak.

So logically: if there is no peak, why keep the premium?

What GERC argued instead

The morning curve is flat because the penalty exists. The price signal itself is suppressing the possible peak.

If you remove that signal the peak may reappear.

This is stability-by-policy not natural equilibrium of consumption behaviour.

PGVCL’s framing

daily load curve in Gujarat is shaped over 20 years of ToU + agriculture feeder scheduling

HT industrial consumers have already shifted what can be shifted

stability is artificially engineered therefore cannot be treated as “evidence” against the peak

The Meghraj study angle

While the study wasn’t written to test the 7–11 AM block directly GERC used it as contextual validation.

Small load shifts matter. They prevent certain network reinforcements + avoid costlier procurement in stressed hours.

Industry argued the opposite

If the data doesn’t show a peak → the premium is legacy inertia.

GERC rejected that. Continuity wins.

Final result

Morning peak stays

ToU rates FY 2016–17 unchanged

No new empirical study ordered

The deeper India tariff reality

Once a demand smoothing tool embeds inside the system… unwinding becomes politically + grid-operationally high risk.

The price of stability → is postponing discovery.

We don’t know if the 7–11 AM peak is real anymore because we refuse to test it.

For more