#tariff

The Trump administration has refunded more than $20 billion so far in tariffs to importers and shippers, according to a court filing, after the Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s trade policy in February. Subscribe to read this story ad-free Get unlimited access to ad-free articles and exclusive content. The administration had relied on authority under the…

The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission has scheduled a public hearing on FY 2023-24 True-Up petitions.

The hearing will be held on June 5, 2026.

It will begin at 11:30 AM.

The hearing will be conducted in hybrid mode.

Stakeholders can participate physically or virtually.

Utilities covered

The hearing covers petitions filed by four Delhi power utilities.

These are Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited.

Pragati Power Corporation Limited is also included.

New Delhi Municipal Council has filed its own petition.

Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited is also part of the proceedings.

Registration deadline

Stakeholders must register before the hearing.

The registration deadline is June 2, 2026.

The deadline time is 5:00 PM.

Participants must register through [email protected].

This applies to both virtual and physical participation.

Why True-Up matters

True-Up proceedings reconcile actual audited costs with previously approved regulatory costs.

If actual costs are higher, utilities may seek recovery through future tariffs.

If approved costs are lower, consumers may receive adjustments or reduced burden.

This makes True-Up orders important for future electricity tariffs.

Delhi consumer impact

Delhi’s domestic, commercial, institutional, and industrial consumers are the final stakeholders.

Approved True-Up gaps can affect future bills.

The process also determines how power-purchase costs, fixed costs, and distribution performance are treated.

Consumer groups and RWAs may therefore closely examine the petitions.

Tata Power-DDL petition

Tata Power-DDL has disclosed a FY 2023-24 revenue gap of Rs. 312.46 crore.

Its aggregate revenue requirement is Rs. 1,779.72 crore.

The utility has also reported performance against its distribution-loss target.

The Commission will examine whether the claimed revenue gap is prudent and recoverable.

Generation utilities

IPGCL and PPCL have filed claims related to their generation stations.

These include annual fixed-cost claims for gas-based assets.

Gas-based generation has become more relevant for grid balancing.

However, fuel cost, plant availability, and fixed-cost recovery remain important regulatory issues.

NDMC petition

NDMC has submitted its own True-Up petition.

Its claim reflects power-purchase costs and supply obligations in its licence area.

NDMC consumers include institutional, commercial, government, and residential users.

The Commission will examine procurement prudence and cost recovery.

Regulatory scrutiny

DERC will review each petition before issuing final True-Up orders.

The review will cover audited accounts, power-purchase costs, revenue recovery, loss levels, and prudence of expenditure.

Stakeholder comments can influence how the Commission treats disputed claims.

This makes the June 5 hearing a key accountability checkpoint.

Strategic message

DERC’s June 5 public hearing is an important step in Delhi’s tariff-setting process.

The True-Up petitions of IPGCL, PPCL, NDMC, and Tata Power-DDL will shape future cost recovery.

Consumers and utilities both have direct stakes in the outcome.

The key watchpoints are stakeholder objections, prudence review of power-purchase costs, treatment of Tata Power-DDL’s Rs. 312.46 crore gap, and final True-Up orders.

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world Key Takeaways for Markets: Escalating Trade Uncertainty: Former President Trump’s threat to impose a 25% tariff on EU cars, despite an existing agreement, signals a potential return to aggressive trade protectionism, injecting significant policy risk and…

1. トランプ氏の本質：学習なき「破壊者」

トランプ氏の政治手法は、過去の教訓や専門知識を重んじる「カイゼン（改善）」ではなく、直感と「思いつき」を武器にする「戦略的ディスラプション（破壊）」です。

知識不足を「過去にとらわれない」という言葉で正当化している側面があり、これは知的コストを惜しむ姿勢の裏返しとも言えます。

信頼を軽視し、「極限まで圧力をかける」ビジネス交渉術を国家間に持ち込む手法は、現代の「信頼資本」を重視する時代には逆行しています。

2. 「メインから外す」という最強のリスクヘッジ

不確実性が高すぎるリーダーに対しては、交渉で勝とうとするよりも、「自分の戦略のメインから彼（アメリカ市場）を外す」ことが最も合理的な防衛策となります。

依存度を下げることで、彼の「予測不能な揺さぶり」の影響を最小化し、感情的・実務的なコストを削減できます。

「相手にされない（無視される）」状態を作ることは、注目を力に変える彼にとって最大の無効化手段となります。

3. 「200%関税」がもたらす歴史的なお灸

トランプ氏が進める極端な高関税戦略は、アメリカを「文化的な貧困」と「経済的孤立」に追い込む自爆行為です。

日本のアニメや欧州の名車・名酒が消えたアメリカは、選択肢のない「不自由で退屈な国」へと格下げされます。

諸国がこれに甘んじて応じ、さらに対米輸出価格を釣り上げる（便乗値上げする）ことで、アメリカ国民は強烈な「熱いお灸」を据えられることになります。

彼はノーベル賞は取れずとも、「経済的鎖国がいかに国を衰退させるか」を証明した反面教師として、経済学史にその名を刻むでしょう。

結論：ドライな契約関係への移行

今後の対米関係は、情緒的な「同盟」から、変なことが起こった際のペナルティを明文化した「冷徹な契約関係」へと移行すべきです。

「アメリカからの依存を自らやめようとしている」彼の意図を逆手に取り、各国がアメリカ抜きの新しい経済・文化圏を淡々と構築していくこと。それが、この「おかしな時代」を終わらせるための、世界が共有すべき知恵となります。

State distribution companies systematically deploy opaque multiplying factors in high-voltage industrial metering software to bypass standard tariff petition oversight. Industrial consumers bear the consequence, absorbing massive retroactive billing shocks that circumvent regulatory scrutiny.

The state regulatory framework mandates that all retail tariff adjustments must pass through a public truing-up process. However, the operational regulations governing metering standards allow distribution utilities to unilaterally apply a Multiplying Factor (MF) when physical meter capacities do not match the sanctioned high-voltage load.

By legally adjusting this software parameter years after the energy was consumed, the utility transforms standard calibration corrections into immediate financial demands. This exploits a technical metering loophole to claw back revenue without ever filing a formal tariff amendment.

The TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN’s "Order / Inspection Report," dated July 28, 2025, cross-referenced with the "Limitation Act 56(2)," documents this procedural maneuver. The ledger records a localized but symptomatic retroactive billing adjustment of Rs. 5,84,848.00 levied on an industrial consumer with a 408.17 KW sanctioned load.

The utility justified this charge by applying a new multiplying factor to 92,102 recorded units, mathematically converting an administrative metering error into an immediate financial penalty. While Rs. 5.8 Lakhs is a minor sum within the macro grid, its presence in the appellate ledger across multiple dates acts as a tracer dye, proving that utilities utilize technical multiplier clauses to execute retroactive billing independently of the tariff commission.

Utility billing engineers argue that applying a multiplying factor is a strict mathematical necessity when current transformers scale down massive industrial loads for safe meter reading, and correcting a multi-year calibration error simply ensures the consumer pays for the exact physical electrons they consumed. While recovering the cost of physically delivered power is a foundational commercial mandate, utilizing a technical calibration clause to retroactively bill consumers for years of the utility's own administrative negligence structurally bypasses the statute of limitations designed to protect ratepayers from indefinite financial liability.

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission must establish a rigid procedural firewall that limits any retroactive multiplying factor adjustments to a maximum of six billing cycles. Until the technical metering code is synchronized with strict financial statutes of limitation, the distribution utility will remain structurally predisposed to use software calibration as a backdoor revenue recovery mechanism.

Grid developers utilize the transmission tariff architecture to capitalize massive cost overruns caused by severe commissioning delays into their permanent asset base. Retail electricity consumers bear the consequence, funding decades of guaranteed equity returns on the builder’s scheduling failures and administrative paralysis.

Under the cost-plus regulatory framework, when a transmission developer constructs a new high-voltage line, they are allowed to claim Interest During Construction. If the project is delayed beyond its scheduled commercial operation date, the accrued interest on the construction loans mechanically balloons.

If the developer successfully argues that the delays were caused by uncontrollable factors—such as right-of-way disputes or delayed forest clearances—the regulator permits them to capitalize the inflated interest directly into the Gross Fixed Asset value. The developer then earns a guaranteed, perennial return on equity not just on the physical steel and wire, but on the capitalized cost of the delay itself.

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission’s "Petition / Order" regarding Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, dated March 23, 2026, alongside the "Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2019," codifies this structural reward for delay. The regulatory docket records a systemic time over-run of 312 days beyond the 36-month scheduled commissioning timeframe for specific transmission assets.

Consequently, the developer successfully claimed a massive Rs. 73.93 Crore in Interest During Construction, embedding the financial cost of a nearly year-long delay directly into the permanent tariff base. Transmission developers assert that systemic delays are exclusively driven by sovereign administrative failures—such as state-level delays in granting forest clearances or local law enforcement failing to resolve severe right-of-way blockades by landowners—arguing that penalizing the developer for sovereign paralysis would bankrupt the infrastructure sector and halt grid expansion entirely.

While the administrative reality of right-of-way litigation is a genuine bottleneck, a regulatory framework that automatically converts sovereign delays into Rs. 73.93 Crore of permanently capitalized, yield-bearing debt mathematically removes any financial incentive for the developer to aggressively expedite construction. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission must strictly segregate capitalized delay costs into a non-yield-bearing regulatory account, ensuring the developer recovers the principal interest without earning a guaranteed 15.5 percent return on the overrun.

Until the tariff math separates physical assets from administrative delays, the public will continuously finance the cost of infrastructure procrastination.