MNRE Adds 402 MW of Solar Cell Capacity to ALMM, Total Nears 38 GW

Bihar Proposes 500 kW Cap for Rooftop Solar Net Metering

Soleos Energy Files Draft Papers for Initial Public Offering

Daily News Wrap-Up: India’s Transmission Plan Faces Execution Test

EU Solar-Storage Jobs Near 1 Million Mark, Manufacturing Employment Dips

PetroGreen Subsidiaries Secure $20 Million for 40 MW Solar Project

Fengate Asset Management Closes Acquisition of Accelergen Energy

Kanpur Packaging Manufacturer Installs Rooftop Solar to Cut Power Costs

TERI Announces Winner of 115 MWh Battery Storage Auction

Power Ministry Revises RoW Compensation Rules for Transmission Lines


					<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/2026/10/amazon_polly_106317.mp3?version=1791262802">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table><p><span style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://mperc.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MPERC</a>) has rejected MP Power Transmission Company’s (MPPTCL) petition seeking approval to bill transmission charges to renewable energy-based long-term open access (LTOA) and medium-term open access (MTOA) customers strictly on contracted capacity.</span></p>
<p>The Commission held that its existing transmission tariff regulations, multiyear tariff (MYT) order, and true-up order already specify the methodology for recovering transmission charges from different categories of consumers. It said no further clarification was required.</p>
<p>MPPTCL had sought approval to recover transmission charges from renewable energy-based LTOA and MTOA customers according to the transmission capacity reserved under their open access approvals and agreements instead of the actual energy transmitted.</p>
<p>However, MPERC noted that it had prescribed a separate methodology for recovering transmission charges from renewable energy sources in its MYT Order.</p>
<p><strong>Background </strong></p>
<p>MPPTCL approached the Commission citing differences in the billing methodology applicable to different users of the state transmission system. It said LTOA and MTOA customers, including distribution companies, Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation, and Indian Railways, share MPPTCL&#8217;s approved annual revenue requirement (ARR), with charges linked to their allotted or contracted capacity.</p>
<p>Renewable energy-based open access users, however, were being charged according to a methodology prescribed by the Commission in a September 2012 order, under which transmission charges were recovered based on the actual energy transmitted through the state transmission system.</p>
<p>MPPTCL argued that transmission infrastructure must be planned, developed, maintained, and kept available for the entire quantum of access granted to renewable energy LTOA and MTOA users, irrespective of their actual energy injection during a billing period.</p>
<p>It said transmission is a fixed-cost intensive business, with the ARR primarily comprising return on equity, interest on loans, depreciation, and operation and maintenance expenses. Once capacity is reserved, network assets are committed, and system strengthening may be required. Allowing customers to pay only according to actual drawal could leave part of the fixed costs unrecovered or shift them to other transmission users.</p>
<p>MP Power Management Company (MPPMCL) opposed the petition, arguing that strict contracted-capacity billing was not expressly provided under the applicable regulations. It said such a change could not be introduced through a clarification petition and would require an amendment to the regulatory framework.</p>
<p>MPPMCL also argued that open access consumers already pay operating charges, imbalance charges, and energy losses based on actual usage. It claimed that charging them strictly on contracted capacity could result in double recovery. It further said MPPTCL&#8217;s ARR is protected through the annual regulatory true-up mechanism.</p>
<p>West Central Railway (WCR) cited MPERC&#8217;s May 2018 order, under which its contracted transmission capacity could be revised based on actual utilization. WCR&#8217;s contracted transmission capacity for the current financial year was consequently revised to 370 MW. WCR argued that transmission charges for renewable energy procured through LTOA and MTOA should similarly be determined according to actual transmission capacity utilized.</p>
<p>WCR also sought adjustment of transmission charges for Short Term Open Access transactions, including power exchange purchases, against unused capacity under its LTOA and MTOA arrangements. MPPTCL opposed the request, stating that the different open access categories are governed separately and that the regulations do not provide for such adjustment.</p>
<p>The State Load Despatch Centre supported MPPTCL&#8217;s position, stating that open access is a capacity-based arrangement in which transmission capacity is allotted between specified injection and drawal points.</p>
<p><strong>Commission&#8217;s Analysis </strong></p>
<p>MPERC examined Regulation 42 of its Transmission Tariff Regulations, 2024, which provides for sharing monthly intrastate transmission charges among long-term transmission customers according to allotted transmission capacity. Medium-term users must similarly pay in proportion to the MW approved by the State Transmission Utility for the relevant month.</p>
<p>However, the Commission noted that its MYT Order for the FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29 control period separately specifies transmission charges for non-conventional energy-based generating projects and open access consumers connected at 132 kV and above.</p>
<p>For FY 2026-27, the order specifies an annual fixed cost of ₹59.49 billion (~$619.98 million), transmission system capacity of 27,949.33 MW, and 11,387.73 MW of non-conventional energy capacity.</p>
<p>Based on total projected energy handled of 130,720.77 million units, the transmission charge was determined at ₹0.46 (~$0.0048)/kWh. The corresponding charges are ₹0.47 (~$0.0049)/kWh for FY 2024-25, ₹0.45 (~$0.0047)/kWh for FY 2025-26, ₹0.45 (~$0.0047)/kWh for FY 2027-28, and ₹0.44 (~$0.0046)/kWh for FY 2028-29.</p>
<p>The Commission also referred to its March 2026 True-up Order for FY 2024-25. While the MYT Order had considered transmission capacity of 26,151.32 MW, MPPTCL subsequently submitted a revised capacity of 21,382.61 MW during true-up. MPERC considered the updated capacities of the distribution companies, WCR, and MPIDC while determining the true-up.</p>
<p>The true-up table showed an approved amount of ₹56.95 billion (~$593.51 million), compared with ₹53.56 billion (~$558.18 million) under the MYT Order. The resulting true-up amount to be shared was ₹3.38 billion (~$35.32 million).</p>
<p>MPERC concluded that the 2024 regulations already provide for considering long-term and medium-term contracted capacity in MYT and true-up proceedings, while the MYT Order separately prescribes the transmission charge recovery mechanism applicable to renewable energy sources.</p>
<p>It also noted that non-tariff income is adjusted against the ARR during true-up and that the existing transmission tariff remains applicable from April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2029.</p>
<p>The Commission held that the applicable regulations and tariff and true-up orders are clear and require no further clarification and disposed of MPPTCL&#8217;s petition.</p>
<p>In February 2026, MPERC <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/madhya-pradesh-amends-open-access-rules-clarifies-billing-mechanism?" target="_blank" rel="noopener">amended</a> its intra-state open access regulations to introduce detailed provisions governing billing, metering, energy adjustment, and surcharge applicability for open access consumers.</p>
<p>Subscribe to Mercom’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’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.</p>


MPERC Rejects Capacity-Based Transmission Billing Plea for Renewables


					<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/2024/02/amazon_polly_63371.mp3?version=1781527897">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table><p>The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://mperc.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MPERC</a>) has clarified that Regulation 2(xix) of the MPERC (Cogeneration and Generation of Electricity from Renewable Sources of Energy) Regulations, 2021 expressly states that hybrid renewable projects can be situated at two distinct locations and are permitted to inject power into the grid from two points.</p>
<p>The order is in response to a petition filed by Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company (<a href="https://www.mptransco.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MPPTCL</a>) seeking clarification regarding the definition of a renewable hybrid energy project.</p>
<p><strong>Background</strong></p>
<p>MPPTCL drew the Commission’s attention to Clause 2(xix), which defines renewable hybrid energy projects as those producing electricity from a combination of renewable energy sources with a single or maximum of two grid injection points.</p>
<p>However, MPPTCL requested clarification in light of various policies and regulations issued by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (<a href="https://mnre.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MNRE</a>) and different states. The petitioner emphasized that clear definitions are crucial for the effective implementation of renewable energy projects.</p>
<p>The National Solar Energy Federation of India (<a href="https://www.nsefi.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NSEFI</a>), in an interlocutory application, asserted that its members have invested in hybrid projects in Madhya Pradesh based on the existing definition of a renewable hybrid energy project under MPERC regulations. Any reinterpretation of this definition could adversely affect the interests of NSEFI members and ongoing projects in the state.</p>
<p>MPPTCL responded by stating that MPERC (Cogeneration and Generation of Electricity from Renewable Sources of Energy) (Revision &#8211; II) Regulations, 2021 defines a hybrid project as one that produces electricity from a combination of renewable energy sources with a single point of injection into the grid.</p>
<p>MPPTCL also provided a table listing the definitions extracted from various sources, including MPERC regulations, national policies, and state-level policies. It asserted that all these definitions emphasize a combination of at least two different renewable energy sources connected to a single point of injection into the grid.</p>
<p>NSEFI responded by restating that the definition of a renewable hybrid energy project is provided in Clause 2 (xix) of the MPERC regulations. The definition provided should be considered exhaustive, allowing injection from two different points into the grid.</p>
<p>NSEFI also pointed out that the MPERC Open Access Regulations also allow electricity transfer from a maximum of two injection points. It argued that both sets of regulations should be read together to conclude that injection from two different locations is permitted.</p>
<p><strong>Commission’s Analysis</strong></p>
<p>The Commission noted that the MPPTCL had not closely examined the regulations applicable in Madhya Pradesh and had unnecessarily reproduced provisions applicable to projects in other states or inter-state projects.</p>
<p>It was observed that neither the petitioner nor any other stakeholders had raised objections or pointed out any likely difficulties in implementing the existing definition of renewable hybrid projects specified in the MPERC regulations.</p>
<p>The Commission said both the MNRE and Ministry of Power, in their bidding guidelines, allowed connectivity of hybrid renewable projects at multiple locations, and state electricity regulatory commissions are bound to comply with these guidelines for power procurement under section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003.</p>
<p>Given these guidelines, the Commission stated that hybrid renewable projects can be situated at two distinct locations and are permitted to inject power into the grid from two points.</p>
<p>Last August, the Ministry of Power <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/bidding-guidelines-wind-solar-hybrid-projects/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> new guidelines for tariff-based competitive bidding for grid-connected wind-solar hybrid power projects.</p>
<p>Subscribe to Mercom’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’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.</p>


Regulator Upholds Grid Connectivity of Hybrid Projects from Two Points

mpptcl

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS