CERC Upholds Tariff Order For Chhattisgarh 100 MW Solar-Plus-Storage Project, Rejects Review Petition

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has issued its final order on a review petition filed by Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (SECI) regarding tariff determination for a 100 MW solar power project with battery storage in Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. The petition sought changes to an earlier order issued in September 2025, where SECI had requested an increase in tariff to Rs 4.22 per kWh, claiming there were errors in the original decision.

SECI raised eleven issues in its petition, arguing that certain costs were wrongly calculated or deducted. One of the key concerns was the disallowance of around Rs 1.69 crore from the contract value. SECI claimed this amount had been deducted twice. However, the Commission reviewed the records and found no evidence of any such double deduction. It concluded that there was no clerical or calculation error in this case.

Another issue involved the rejection of Rs 3.88 crore related to pre-project activities. SECI argued that these costs should have been included, but the Commission maintained that the company did not provide enough supporting documents to justify these expenses. As a result, the earlier decision to exclude these costs was upheld.

There was also disagreement over the treatment of a Rs 66.6 crore Clean Technology Fund (CTF) grant. SECI stated that this grant was meant only for the battery storage part of the project and should not reduce the solar project cost. However, the Commission rejected this argument and said that, as per regulatory norms, all grants must be deducted from the total capital cost of the project.

SECI further challenged technical assumptions such as the disallowance of a 0.5% degradation factor. The Commission refused to reconsider this point, stating that current regulations do not allow such a provision. On the financial side, SECI requested a higher interest rate of 10.57% on its loans. The Commission had earlier approved a lower rate of 6.15%, based on actual World Bank loan terms. It decided to continue with this approach, stating that concessional financing helps protect consumer interests while still ensuring reasonable returns for developers.

The Commission also rejected SECI’s attempt to introduce a new interest rate based on bonds issued after the original order. It clarified that review petitions cannot be used to present new developments or change the financial structure of a project after the fact.

Meanwhile, Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited (CSPDCL) opposed the petition, stating that SECI had already filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and was trying to re-argue the same matter.

In its final decision, the Commission dismissed all eleven grounds raised by SECI. It emphasized that the scope of a review petition is very limited and cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal. Since no clear error or new evidence was found, the original tariff order remains unchanged.