Power regulator draws a hard line on tariff finality in APNRL FY23 review
India’s power regulators are sending an increasingly clear message on tariff certainty—and the West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (WBERC) latest order on Adhunik Power & Natural Resources Ltd (APNRL) reinforces that line firmly.
In a detailed ruling on APNRL’s FY 2022–23 review petition, WBERC has rejected attempts to reopen settled tariff elements, underlining that review proceedings are not a second chance at tariff determination.
Review is not a tariff reset
The case, registered as APR(R)-47/25-26, involved APNRL seeking review of earlier Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment (FPPCA) and Annual Performance Review (APR) orders for FY23. Those original orders had already finalised fuel costs, capitalisation, financing parameters, and recovery mechanisms.
WBERC made it clear that review jurisdiction under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003—read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure—is deliberately narrow. A review can only correct an error apparent on the face of the record or consider genuinely new evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.
Disagreement with regulatory reasoning, the Commission held, does not qualify.
Capital cost reopening bid fails
A key thrust of APNRL’s petition was to revise the opening capital cost for FY23 and admit additional capitalisation, including claims related to generator rotor replacement and Distributed Control System–Human Machine Interface (DCS-HMI) software upgrades.
The Commission rejected these arguments, noting that the same issues were examined during the original APR proceedings. APNRL failed to demonstrate any accounting mistake or regulatory oversight warranting review.
On the generator rotor issue, WBERC reiterated that capitalisation is permissible only when the original asset itself was capitalised—an essential condition APNRL could not meet.
Fuel, O&M and financing issues stay closed
WBERC also declined to revisit coal price and gross calorific value claims, operation and maintenance expenses, and financing parameters such as return on equity and debt-equity ratio.
Several of these matters, the Commission noted, were already adjudicated or pending before appellate forums. Entertaining them under review would amount to re-litigation, which review jurisdiction expressly prohibits.
Limited relief on a narrow technical ground
The only relief granted was modest. WBERC allowed Rs 7.71 lakh towards workshop and laboratory equipment, recognising the expenditure as new in nature, operationally justified, and eligible under additional capitalisation norms.
After downstream adjustments to depreciation, interest on loan, and interest on working capital, the total recoverable amount was capped at Rs 6.53 lakh, including carrying cost. Recovery will take place in three equal monthly instalments starting January 2026.
The Commission rejected APNRL’s request to alter the carrying-cost methodology or extend the recovery period, holding that such changes would violate tariff regulations.
While the financial impact of the order is negligible, the regulatory message is clear. By tightly limiting relief, WBERC has reinforced the finality of tariff orders, preserved the discipline of review proceedings, and protected utilities and consumers from retrospective cost loading.
For generators, the ruling underscores that post-facto operational arguments cannot substitute for timely, regulation-compliant filings.
WBERC’s APNRL FY23 order shuts the door on expansive review petitions, allowing only marginal correction while strengthening regulatory certainty in India’s power sector.
For more visit: https://www.energylineindia.com/
