Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has issued a clarification on applicability of ALMM Order for Behind-the-Meter Solar Projects
- The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) issued a clarification dated July 7, 2025 regarding the applicability of the Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (ALMM) Order, 2019, to behind-the-meter (BTM) solar power projects.
- On December 9, 2024, MNRE issued an Office Memorandum (OM) extending the applicability of the ALMM framework to solar PV cells. This led to a query on whether the existing exemption from ALMM compliance, for BTM solar power plants used solely for captive consumption by individual consumers or consumer groups, also applied to BTM installations set up by government entities or PSUs.
- In response, MNRE clarified that ALMM will not be applicable to BTM solar power projects installed for captive consumption by Central/State Government offices, government institutions, and PSUs.
- MNRE further clarified that BTS solar projects set up for
captive consumption by government entities or PSUs shall:
- - Be required to use ALMM-enlisted solar PV modules, but are exempt from using ALMM-enlisted solar PV cells if commissioned before June 1, 2026;
- - Be required to use both ALMM-enlisted solar PV modules and solar PV cells if commissioned on or after June 1, 2026.
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has issued amendments to Central Financial Assistance norms under the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana on 08.07.2025
- Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) issued amendments to Central Financial Assistance norms under the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojna on July 8, 2025. Earlier, Clause 5(i) allowed State/UT governments to supplement the Central Financial Assistance (CFA) for residential rooftop solar (RTS) systems with an additional subsidy, provided it adhered to all scheme guidelines and was aligned with the central scheme, with the disbursement process integrated into the National Portal.
- After the amendment, while the core provision remains unchanged, it is now explicitly required that any additional State/UT subsidy must be updated on the National Portal, enhancing transparency and coordination.
- Earlier, as per Annexure 1 of the Guidelines, all applications submitted under Phase II of the rooftop solar programme were eligible for CFA only if the claim was received by October 2024, and claims beyond that date were not admissible. After the amendment, the deadline for submitting claims has been extended to December 31, 2025 for applications that are at the redeemed, inspected, or installed stage, provided they comply with Phase II guidelines. Additionally, applications that remain uninstalled as of April 1, 2025 will be deemed ineligible for CFA and will be removed from the database, though such consumers may reapply under the Pradhan Mantri Sarvodaya Yojana: Muft Bijli Yojana (PMSG: MBY) in the future.
- Earlier, Clause 6(f) stated that vendors installing RTS systems under the scheme must comply with the minimum technical specifications identified by the Ministry, which would be verified by DISCOMs during inspection. After the amendment, while retaining the core requirements, the clause now adds that the Ministry may amend these technical specifications prospectively, subject to the approval of the Secretary, MNRE, allowing for greater flexibility in updating standards.
Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills Association (TNSMA) Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) and Ors.
Appellate Tribunal for Electricity's (APTEL) appeal dated June 16, 2025 in Appeal No. 176 of 2016, Appeal No. 177 of 2016, Appeal No. 52 of 2017 and IA No. 145 of 2017, Appeal No. 102 of 2017 and IA No. 149 of 2017, Appeal No. 380 of 2017 and Appeal No. 381 of 2017
Background facts
- The batch of appeals was filed by the Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills Association (TNSMA), Indian Wind Power Association (IWPA), and Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO), challenging various orders issued by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) in 2016 concerning the regulation of wind energy charges and conditions in Tamil Nadu.
- The associations representing wind generators and industrial consumers contested TNERC's decisions to increase banking charges from 5% to 10% of energy, to levy transmission and wheeling charges based on the installed capacity rather than actual generation, and to alter other conditions that they argued would raise costs and reduce the financial viability of wind power projects.
- TNSMA and IWPA argued that TNERC made these decisions without carrying out transparent, data-driven studies as earlier directed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and without giving due consideration to the adverse impact on existing wind power generators.
- Separate cross-appeals were also filed by TANGEDCO challenging provisions unfavourable to the utility, particularly on the issue of banking facilities and other commercial parameters for wind energy.
- These appeals collectively sought reversal or modification of TNERC's 2016 orders, arguing that the changes imposed additional financial burdens without adequate justification or proper regulatory process, and that TNERC had not complied with the directions from APTEL in an earlier remand order.
Issues at Hand
- Whether TNERC was justified in levying transmission and wheeling charges based on installed capacity instead of actual generation.
- Whether TNERC was right in increasing the banking charges to 10% without adequate justification.
- Whether TNERC erred in withdrawing Deemed Demand Charges without any valid reason.
- Whether there was a violation of principles of natural justice in the Commission's process.
- Whether TNERC was justified in eliminating the banking facility without proper analysis of its financial impact.
Decision of the Court/Tribunal
- The Hon'ble APTEL noted that it had failed to comply with the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal in the earlier Remand Order, particularly with regard to conducting a detailed and data -driven study before revising banking charges.
- Further, APTEL noted that the present appeal was filed by Tamil Nadu Spinning Mills and the Indian Wind Power Association against the 2016 orders of TNERC, and that these appeals concern the restriction on consumption of banked wind energy and the unjustified increase in banking charges.
- APTEL acknowledged that a distribution licensee cannot be allowed to benefit from restrictions it has itself imposed, particularly when wind energy generators were prevented from consuming the energy they had banked.
- APTEL concluded that there was no justification for increasing the banking charges from 5% to 15% or for curtailing the banking period from one year to one month, in the absence of empirical support and in light of prior Tribunal directives.
- Accordingly, APTEL decided to remand the matter back to the State Commission for fresh consideration and partly allowed the appeal to the extent indicated above.
HSA Viewpoint
This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of regulatory accountability and procedural fairness in electricity tariff determination, particularly in how benefits like power banking are handled for renewable energy generators. The APTEL has sent a clear message to the State Commission decisions that affect the renewable energy sector must be evidence based, transparent, and involve meaningful consultation with stakeholders. APTEL has rightly upheld the principles of reasonableness, transparency, and statutory intent. It's a relief for wind generators and industry associations like TNSMA and IWPA, who were facing uncertainty and financial strain due to policy shifts taken without adequate analytical support.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. (UPRVUNL) Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (UPPCL)
Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission's (UPERC) Order dated June 16, 2025 in Petition No. 2140 of 2025 along with I.A. No. 1 of 2025
Background facts
- The petition was filed by Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (UPRVUNL) before the Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) seeking in -principal approval to utilize the third raised ash dyke of the Obra B Thermal Power Project (TPP) for the disposal of ash generated from the 2x660 megawatt Obra C Thermal Power Project.
- The Obra -C project commenced power generation with the commissioning of Unit 1 on February 9, 2024. However, the development of its dedicated ash dyke was delayed due to unresolved land acquisition issues involving both civil and forest land.
- In line with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change's (MoEFCC) notification dated December 31, 2021, which mandated 100 percent utilization of fly ash by all coal and lignite -based thermal power plants, UPRVUNL was obligated to ensure proper ash disposal from Obra C despite the infrastructure delay.
- As an interim measure, UPRVUNL began utilizing the existing ash dyke of the adjoining Obra B project, already raised in capacity, for managing ash from both projects. With Obra C's Unit 1 approaching full capacity, a third raising of the Obra B ash dyke was deemed necessary to accommodate the increased ash load from both facilities, to ensure full compliance with the MoEFCC's Notification.
- The Petitioner has submitted that, while no capital expenditure for the third raising of the ash dyke has been claimed at present, it is seeking in -principle approval.
Issues at hand
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim the in -principle approval as per Regulation 20(2) of the UPERC Generation Tariff Regulations, 2019 (UPERC Tariff Regulations).
Decision of the Court/Tribunal
- UPERC noted that under the UPERC Tariff Regulations, any additional capital expenditure can be considered for approval only after it has actually been incurred, and only upon prudence check by the Commission. The regulation specifically allows the Petitioner to seek approval of such expenditure, including for the raising of the ash dyke as part of the ash disposal system, strictly in accordance with the prescribed process.
- The Commission further observed that it is a well -established principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes a particular procedure for undertaking an activity, the same must be followed, and the activity cannot be undertaken in any other manner.
- Accordingly, the Petitioner is required to submit its claim for additional capital expenditure in the manner laid down under the UPERC Tariff Regulations. Since the Regulations do not permit for any in -principal approval of additional capitalization, the Commission disposed of the Petition and directed the Petitioner to file such claims as part of the Multi -Year Tariff (MYT) Petition with necessary details and justifications, in compliance with the applicable regulatory provisions .
HSA Viewpoint
The UPERC's decision reinforces strict adherence to regulatory procedures by denying in -principle approval for future capital expenditure, ensuring that cost claims are only considered after actual incurrence and detailed scrutiny. This promotes financial discipline among generating companies and protects consumers from premature or unjustified tariff impacts. It also highlights the need for better project planning, especially in meeting environmental obligations, ensuring sustainable and accountable growth in the energy sector .
To view the full article clickhere
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
