The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) on July 9, 2025, dismissed a petition filed by CESC Limited seeking approval for the adoption of a tariff of ₹3.81 per unit for the long-term procurement of 300 MW power from a grid-connected Wind-Solar Hybrid Project. The tariff was discovered through a competitive bidding process conducted under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Power for such projects. The petition was filed under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
CESC had floated a Request for Selection (RfS) on November 8, 2024, inviting bids for a 150 MW Wind-Solar Hybrid Project with an additional 150 MW under the Greenshoe Option. The bidding process, conducted on the ISN ETS e-bidding portal, attracted three technically qualified bidders, and an e-reverse auction was held on December 27, 2024. The successful bidder, Purvah Green Power Private Limited, was awarded the total 300 MW capacity, and a Letter of Award was issued on January 7, 2025.
CESC defended the tariff of ₹3.81/kWh, stating that the project has a higher Capacity Utilisation Factor (CUF) of 50% compared to the usual 30% in similar projects, and a shorter completion timeline of 20 months. The Bid Evaluation Committee (BEC) had certified that the discovered tariff was in line with market conditions. A report by the Administrative Staff College of India also supported this claim.
However, the Commission noted several procedural lapses. The primary issue was that CESC obtained approval for deviations from the bidding guidelines from the Government of West Bengal, instead of the Central Government, even though the project was connected to the Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS). The Commission had earlier cautioned CESC in a similar matter (Petition No. 365/AT/2024) that for inter-state projects, such deviations must be approved by the Central Government.
The Commission emphasized that despite being made aware of the proper procedure on November 5, 2024, CESC proceeded to issue the RfS on November 8, 2024, without correcting the jurisdictional lapse. Moreover, the Commission raised concerns over transparency and limited competition, as the successful bidder in both this and the previous petition was a sister company of CESC.
CERC concluded that accepting the petition would violate the principles under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, as the mandatory guidelines for competitive bidding were not followed. Therefore, the Commission rejected the adoption of the discovered tariff and advised CESC to conduct a fresh bidding process in compliance with the appropriate guidelines and approvals.
The petition was thus disposed of, with CESC now required to restart the procurement process if it wishes to proceed with the project.
){kind=link}