Amplus Wins Partial Relief in Power Tariff Row; APTEL Flags Flaws in HERC Cost Checks

The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) has partly allowed an appeal filed by Amplus Sun Solutions Pvt. Ltd., challenging a tariff order issued by the Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC). The dispute relates to tariff determination for a solar project and key cost components that were either disallowed or reduced by the state regulator.

Developer Challenges Cost Disallowances

Amplus Sun Solutions argued that HERC wrongly disallowed part of the project’s DC capacity while determining tariff. The developer maintained that achieving a Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) of 25.91% requires a DC:AC ratio of 1.5:1, equivalent to 75 MW DC for a 50 MW AC project. However, HERC restricted the ratio to 1.4:1, resulting in the disallowance of ₹13.13 crore in module and civil costs.

The company also alleged that HERC violated principles of natural justice by benchmarking its project against another developer, LR Energy, without prior notice. According to Amplus, project-specific tariff determination under Section 62 should be based on actual audited costs rather than comparisons with other projects.

In addition, the developer sought inclusion of ₹11.29 crore spent on transmission and evacuation infrastructure, arguing that the Renewable Energy Regulations, 2017 require these costs to be treated as part of capital expenditure. The company told the tribunal that the tariff order had led to a revenue loss exceeding ₹14.10 crore and resulted in the cancellation of an ₹81 crore loan facility by lender NIIF. Amplus had requested a revised tariff of ₹2.85 per kWh or a provisional tariff of ₹2.78 per kWh during the redetermination process.

Discom Defends HERC Order

Haryana Power Purchase Centre (HPPC) defended the HERC decision, stating that the regulator had carried out a mandatory prudence check as directed in earlier proceedings. The discom argued that in the absence of statutory guidelines on DC:AC ratios, HERC’s comparative benchmarking approach was justified, particularly since LR Energy’s project was located in the same district.

HPPC also rejected the allegation of violation of natural justice, stating that the developer was aware of the benchmarking exercise and had addressed it in its submissions before HERC. The discom further contended that the power purchase agreement places the cost of transmission infrastructure on the developer and therefore such expenses cannot be passed through in the tariff.

APTEL Remands Key Issues, Grants Interim Tariff

After examining the matter, APTEL found shortcomings in the methodology adopted by HERC and remanded several issues for fresh consideration. The tribunal ruled that benchmarking the project against a single developer did not meet the requirements of project-specific tariff determination and directed HERC to re-examine the appropriate DC:AC ratio, potentially through an independent expert simulation study.

The tribunal also held that HERC erred in excluding transmission and evacuation infrastructure costs, noting that the Renewable Energy Regulations override the PPA in this regard. These costs are to be included in the capital cost after a prudence check. APTEL further directed that project management expenses should be proportionately revised if the capital cost increases following the remand.

While the tribunal declined the developer’s request for a ₹2.78 per kWh interim tariff, it granted a provisional tariff of ₹2.68 per kWh, higher than the ₹2.58 per kWh approved by HERC. The revised interim tariff will remain in force until the regulator issues a final decision after the remand proceedings. APTEL also clarified that carrying costs will be payable on any differential amount determined later.