CERC Dismisses Review Plea On 300 MW Wind-Solar Hybrid Tariff Approval

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has dismissed a review petition filed by CESC Limited regarding the adoption of a tariff for a 300 MW wind-solar hybrid power project. The matter stemmed from an earlier CERC order on July 9, 2025, which rejected CESC’s plea to adopt a tariff of ₹3.81 per unit discovered through a competitive bidding process. CESC sought a review under Section 94(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, arguing that the rejection was based on errors and misinterpretations.

CESC had issued a Request for Selection on November 8, 2024, for setting up 150 MW inter-state transmission system (ISTS)-connected wind-solar hybrid projects, with a greenshoe option of an additional 150 MW. Before the bidding, it had secured deviation approval from the Government of West Bengal on June 28, 2024, allowing bidders to supply up to 100% of the bid capacity. This was a deviation from guidelines that normally capped allocation to a single bidder. CESC maintained that it approached the state government as the “appropriate government” for approvals, since it was procuring power for West Bengal consumers.

However, the Commission had rejected tariff adoption, stating that the approval should have come from the Central Government because the project was interstate in nature. It found that CESC was aware of this distinction after queries raised in a prior case, but went ahead with state approval instead. The Commission also observed that the justification for the ₹3.81 tariff was unconvincing and not supported by adequate analysis.

In its review petition, CESC argued that the Commission mistakenly treated earlier proceedings as a directive to seek central approval. It said that as of November 8, 2024, there was no clear order requiring Central Government approval for deviations, and it acted in good faith. CESC further pointed out that in similar cases, procurers had been allowed to cure such defects by obtaining post-facto approval. In July 2025, it even approached the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy for such approval. The company also defended the tariff as market-aligned, backed by reports from its bid evaluation committee and an external certification.

The Commission, however, concluded that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to justify review. It noted that the Supreme Court had already clarified in 2017 that in inter-state matters, the “appropriate government” is the Central Government. It held that CESC had sufficient time after November 5, 2024, to recall or adjust its bidding process but chose not to. On the tariff issue, the Commission said that CESC’s reasoning was speculative and failed to present a convincing computation to justify the higher rate.

CESC also requested the expungement of certain remarks in the July order, including references to a lack of transparency and the winning bidder being its wholly owned subsidiary. While the Commission agreed to modify the wording on ownership, clarifying that the bidder was not wholly owned, it refused to delete other remarks, holding that they were based on the record.

Ultimately, the Commission dismissed the review petition and related applications, reiterating that the tariff adoption could not be approved as the bidding process failed to comply with the statutory guidelines. It is advised that CESC may conduct a fresh bidding process in accordance with Section 63 of the Electricity Act.