KSERC Dismisses Petitions By Renewable Associations Over Draft Regulation And Hearing Format In Kerala

The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC) has dismissed petitions filed by two renewable energy associations—Kerala Renewable Energy Entrepreneurs and Promoters Association (KREEPA) and Confederation of Renewable Energy (CORE)—on the grounds of legal non-maintainability. The petitions had sought additional time for submitting comments on the Draft KSERC (Renewable Energy and Related Matters) Regulations, 2025, and had requested changes to the format of the planned public hearings. The Commission issued its order on October 16, 2025, disposing of the matter on procedural grounds, although the issues raised were linked to important regulatory changes for Kerala’s renewable energy sector.

The main concern of the associations was the proposal in the draft regulations to drastically reduce net metering eligibility for renewable energy generators from 1000 kW to just 3 kW. Both KREEPA and CORE argued that this reduction was unreasonable, lacked adequate justification, and violated the principles of the Electricity Act, 2003, which emphasize protecting consumer interests. They stated that such a move would favor electricity suppliers while discouraging consumers who invest in renewable energy and contribute to the grid. The petitioners requested a three-month extension for filing objections, publication of a statement of facts explaining the proposed changes, and public hearings in at least three districts through physical sessions rather than an entirely online format.

During the online hearing held on July 15, 2025, the maintainability of the petitions was questioned by both the Commission and the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (KSEB Ltd.). KSEB pointed out that KSERC had already provided ample opportunities for stakeholders to give input, starting with the release of a discussion paper in January 2025 and organizing six interactive consultations, which included participation from both petitioner associations. KSERC agreed with this argument, observing that the petitions were procedurally flawed because the Commission itself had been named as a respondent. It stated that as an adjudicating body, it cannot rule on a matter in which it is directly made a party. The Commission further noted that the petitioners did not cite any provision in the Electricity Act, 2003, or other relevant regulations that would allow such petitions to be filed against a draft regulation still under public consultation.

Although the petitions were declared non-maintainable, the issue of public hearing formats was already under judicial scrutiny. Earlier, the High Court of Kerala had directed KSERC to conduct physical hearings at four locations—Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram. KSERC had challenged this order by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Electricity Act does not explicitly require physical hearings. The Supreme Court, in its judgment on October 6, 2025, did not stay the High Court’s order but stated that it would review the matter and consider establishing a uniform procedure for public hearings across all Electricity Regulatory Commissions in the country. Pending the Supreme Court’s detailed examination, KSERC decided to proceed in compliance with the High Court directive to avoid further regulatory uncertainty. The Commission scheduled physical public hearings for the draft regulations at the four specified locations on October 22, 28, 29, and 30, 2025. It also rejected the associations’ request for additional time and for special training or awareness programs, explaining that sufficient consultation had already taken place. KSERC concluded that the activities of the Consumer Advocacy Cell cannot be directed based on a single petitioner’s request and reiterated that the regulatory process had followed due procedure.