KP Energy Secures Order to Set Up 91 MW Wind-Solar Hybrid Project in Gujarat

Potaliya Petrochemicals, Kishan Infrastructure Win SECI’s 17.77 MW Rooftop Solar Auction

MAHAGENCO-NTPC Green JV Issues Land Procurement Tender for Renewable Projects

Euler Motors Secures ₹4.37 Billion in Series E Funding Round

Madhya Pradesh Hikes Power Tariff for FY 2026-27 Across All Categories

USITC Opens Probe into TOPCon Solar Imports for Patent Infringement

August Energy Secures ₹1.3 Billion in Debt Financing from Aseem Infrastructure

India Eyes 137,500 ckm Grid Expansion to Support 900 GW Renewables by FY 2036

Maharashtra Revises Energy Banking Rules in Modified Multi-Year Tariff Order

India Targets 60% Non-Fossil Power Capacity, 47% Emission Cuts by 2035

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/amazon_polly_92446.mp3?version=1774509352">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>The <a href="https://www.sci.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> has ruled that the generation-based incentive granted to wind power generators must be disbursed in addition to the tariff and cannot be adjusted in a manner that would defeat the program&#8217;s purpose.
The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh distribution companies against an <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/aptel-rectifies-generation-based-incentive-omissions-in-wind-tariff-determination" target="_blank" rel="noopener">order</a> of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL).
The Supreme Court clarified that state electricity regulatory commissions (SERCs) possess plenary authority over tariff determination and may consider incentives or subsidies received by generating companies. However, this power must be aligned with the objective of the incentive program.
It rejected the argument that central government grants are insulated from regulatory consideration. It held that such incentives continue to be received by generators and are not diverted or intercepted by the regulator, which only determines the tariff payable by distribution companies (DISCOMs).
Aditya K Singh, Partner at <a href="https://www.dentonslinklegal.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dentons Link Legal</a>, appearing for the developers, commented, &#8220;The Supreme Court, while clarifying the quagmire, has provided a big relief for renewable power developers. While on the one hand it recognized that the tariff determination is the exclusive domain of the SERC, on the other hand it held that the SERC is bound to give effect to schemes as envisaged by the Central Government.&#8221;
Singh said it was submitted before the Court that the word “consider” as appearing in Regulation 20 does not mean automatic deduction and accordingly, prayed to recognize that this GBI as being “over and above” the tariff so determined by the SERC. Therefore, the contextual interpretation of Regulation 20 ought to be accorded, and the generation-based incentive program, earmarked for the benefit of developers, ought not be undermined by a restrictive interpretation of Regulation 20.
Background 
The dispute concerns the Generation-Based Incentive program introduced by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy to promote wind power generation. Under the program, wind power producers are provided an incentive of ₹0.50 (~$0.0106)/kWh of electricity fed into the grid for four to ten years, subject to a cap of ₹6.2 million (~$65,925)/MW. The program is implemented through the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency and was designed to attract investment and increase renewable energy capacity.
The program itself provides that the incentive is over and above the tariff approved by state regulators and is not to be taken into account while setting the tariff. It was intended as a performance-linked benefit for generators to encourage higher efficiency and increased generation.
The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission notified tariff regulations for wind power projects in 2015. These regulations, including Regulation 20, required the Commission to take into account any incentive or subsidy offered by the Central or State Government while determining the tariff.
Pursuant to these regulations, the Commission issued tariff orders in 2015 and 2016 without factoring in the generation-based incentive. The DISCOMs later sought amendment of these tariff orders. When no action was taken, they filed a petition in February 2017.
By its order in July 2018, the Commission allowed the petition and permitted the deduction of the incentive from payments made to generators, effectively reducing the tariff. The Commission relied on Regulation 20 and held that incentives availed by generators must be taken into account while determining the tariff.
Wind power developers challenged this decision before APTEL, which directed the DISCOMs to refund the amounts deducted, along with interest at 12% per annum.
The DISCOMs and the Commission argued before the Supreme Court that tariff determination is the exclusive domain of the regulator under the Electricity Act and that Regulation 20 required consideration of incentives, such as the generation-based incentive.
The generators contended that the incentive was intended as a benefit to them and was expressly designed to remain separate from the tariff. Adjusting it against the tariff would undermine the program and defeat its objective. They also argued that a grant approved by Parliament for a specific purpose could not be effectively converted into a consumer benefit through regulatory action.
Court&#8217;s Analysis 
The Supreme Court examined the Electricity Act, 2003, and observed that tariff determination is the exclusive domain of the regulatory commissions.
It interpreted Regulation 20 as imposing an obligation on the state regulator to consider any government-provided incentive or subsidy. It held that if an incentive affects a generating company&#8217;s economic position, the regulator is obligated to consider its bearing on the tariff.
At the same time, the Supreme Court clarified that consideration of an incentive does not automatically require its deduction from the tariff or its pass-through to consumers.
It rejected the constitutional argument that factoring the incentive into the tariff would alter the destination of a parliamentary grant. It held that the incentive reaches the generators as intended and that tariff determination does not involve diverting funds but only the determination of the price payable by DISCOMs.
The apex court also noted that the generation-based incentive was introduced to promote renewable energy, attract investment, and support the transition away from fossil fuels. It referred to the statutory mandate under the Electricity Act to promote renewable energy. It highlighted the need for regulatory bodies to align with policy objectives and other stakeholders.
It emphasized that regulatory power must be exercised within a collaborative framework involving multiple institutions. While the regulator retains final authority over tariffs, it must ensure that its decisions do not undermine the purpose of policy measures introduced to develop the sector.
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that although the regulatory commission has the authority to consider the generation-based incentive, its approach in this case was inconsistent with the program&#8217;s objective. By allowing the deduction of the incentive from tariff payments, the regulator effectively nullified the intended benefit to generators.
The Court therefore concluded that the generation-based incentive must be given effect in accordance with its purpose as an additional benefit to generators.
Subscribe to Mercom&#8217;s real-time <a href="https://mercomindia.com/product/mercoms-renewable-energy-regulatory-updates/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Regulatory Updates</a> to ensure you don&#8217;t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.

Supreme Court Upholds Generation-Based Incentives for Renewable Projects

The Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="http://www.erckerala.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">KSERC</a>) has directed Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (<a href="http://www.kseb.in/index.php?lang=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">KSEB</a>) to submit a detailed proposal on providing a generation-based incentive (GBI) for off-grid captive solar power projects. The detailed plan must be submitted within two months.
The GBI program was introduced by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) to promote off-grid solar power projects.
The Commission has deferred implementing the order dated November 11, 2019, until the Commission decides on the petition filed by KSEB Limited.
KSEB filed a petition on December 26, 2019, against the Commission’s order to <a href="https://mercomindia.com/kerala-extends-validity-consumer-incentives-off-grid-solar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">extend</a> the validity of the order dated September 30, 2014, for a period of two years from October 01, 2019.
KSERC, in its order, had provided the provision of incentives for off-grid captive solar power projects. The Commission had directed the licensees to provide generation-based incentive at the rate of ₹1.00 ($0.014)/kWh for five years from September 30, 2014, or until KSEB meets its solar renewable power purchase obligation (RPO) for any year. KSEB was yet to reach its RPO targets while the ongoing program expired on September 30, 2019. It also stated that the solar power for which the licensee has paid the incentive to the consumer should be accounted for the solar RPO of each licensee.
The KSEB in its review petition had said that the order issued in the matter of GBI for off-grid captive solar projects was without consultation with the stakeholders and without following the due process as per the KSERC Regulations, 2003.
In the petition, it was argued that while extending the GBI program for two years, the Commission had not followed the procedures stipulated under Regulation 23 of KSERC Conduct of Business Regulations, 2003. So, KSEB submitted that it was “bad in law” on the face of records, and an instant petition was filed for the review of the order.
Considering the issues raised by KSEB Ltd, the Commission has decided to admit the petition and re-examine the matter of providing generation-based incentives. The Commission added that until the Commission decides on the subject matter, it has decided to defer the implementation of the order extending the validity of the order for two years.
Earlier, the Kerala government <a href="https://mercomindia.com/kerala-solar-projects-soura/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">launched</a> a ‘Soura’ program to add 1,000 MW of solar power projects by 2022, which would help the entities fulfill their RPO. The program involves 500 MW rooftop solar, 200 MW of ground-mounted solar, 100 MW of floating solar, 150 MW of solar park, and 50 MW of canal top solar projects to be installed by 2022.

Kerala Defers Execution of Generation-Based Incentives for Off-Grid Captive Solar

generation-based-incentive

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS