The Telangana Electricity Regulatory Commission (TGERC) has ruled that there is no basis to modify the existing time-of-day (ToD) tariff structure for high-tension consumers and upheld its earlier decision to withdraw the night-time rebate of ₹1.50 (~$0.0161)/kWh.

The Commission stated that the limited remand by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) was confined to examining the applicability of the Electricity Rights of Consumers Amendment Rules 2023 and did not require reopening or altering the tariff order issued in November 2025.

It clarified that Rule 8A of the 2023 Rules does not mandate the continuation of a night-time rebate, and that any changes to peak or solar-hour tariffs can only be undertaken through a full tariff determination process under the Electricity Act after due public consultation.

Background

The case originates from petitions filed by the Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana and the Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana seeking amendments to the ToD tariff approved in the retail supply tariff order for FY 2025-26.

These amendments were proposed to better align tariffs with industrial load patterns, power purchase costs, and market price trends. In November 2025, the Commission allowed the petitions and approved the withdrawal of the enhanced night-time rebate of ₹1.50 (~$0.0161)/kWh, introduced earlier.

Radha Smelters challenged this decision before APTEL, arguing that the Commission had failed to consider the Electricity Rights of Consumers Amendment Rules 2023, particularly Rule 8A, which mandates time-of-day tariffs and requires that tariffs during solar hours be at least 20 % lower than the normal tariff.

The company contended that while the Commission had removed the night rebate, it had not introduced the required solar-hour benefit, resulting in a tariff structure that violated the statutory framework. It also pointed out that several other state commissions had implemented the 20% solar-hour rebate and argued that the rules are binding subordinate legislation with mandatory application.

The APTEL disposed of the appeal in February 2026 with a limited remand directing the Commission to examine whether the 2023 Amendment Rules apply to the consumer category in question and to determine whether any relief should be granted.

The Tribunal clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the extent of applicability or the nature of relief and did not set aside the Commission’s earlier tariff order.

Commission’s Analysis

The Commission emphasized that the Tribunal’s remand was narrow in scope and did not disturb its earlier findings on tariff determination. It observed that there is no provision in the Electricity Act or the applicable rules that mandates the grant or continuation of a night-time rebate and that such rebates fall within the Commission’s regulatory discretion.

It noted that Rule 8A must be read within its subject matter and cannot be interpreted as governing all components of tariff design. According to the Commission, the Rule specifically addresses tariff differentiation between peak and solar hours and does not mandate rebates, such as those applicable during night hours.

The Commission also pointed out that introducing a 20% solar-hour rebate would require a comprehensive reassessment of the entire tariff structure, including balancing tariffs across different time blocks and consumer categories. Such an exercise would necessitate detailed data analysis, public notice, stakeholder consultations, and compliance with statutory procedures under Sections 61, 62, and 64 of the Electricity Act.

It stated that these steps cannot be undertaken within the limited scope of the present proceedings, which arose from an interlocutory application and a targeted remand.

Additionally, the Commission observed that any change to the tariff design for a specific consumer segment would have cascading effects on other consumer segments and could not be implemented in isolation.

It reiterated that tariff determination is a holistic process that must consider system-wide implications such as demand profiles, load patterns, and power procurement costs.

Based on these considerations, the Commission concluded that, while Rule 8A is relevant to future tariff design, its implementation requires a proper tariff proceeding and cannot be enforced in the current case.

It held that the earlier withdrawal of the night-time rebate remains valid and that no relief is warranted to the respondent.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.