Project-specific tariff determination remanded for reconsideration of disputed costs, flood damage, and subsidy deductions.

The appellant developed the 24 MW Dikshi Small Hydro Electric Project under an MoU with the Government of Arunachal Pradesh and entered into civil-works contracts with a contractor, including a renegotiated contract with revised rates

After the project was commissioned on 19 September 2019, the appellant challenged parts of the Commission’s tariff order dated 20 December 2019, which had approved the project’s capital cost and determined its generation tariff

The appeal concerned the Commission’s reduction of civil-works costs and interest during construction, its disallowance of costs attributed to flood damage, and its deduction of a ₹5 crore subsidy that the appellant said it had not received

1. Whether the Commission’s restriction of civil-works costs and interest during construction in determining the project’s capital cost required reconsideration.

2. Whether the Commission’s disallowance of additional restoration costs arising from three floods, based on the lower insurance settlement, required reconsideration.

3. Whether the Commission’s deduction of a ₹5 crore subsidy from capital cost, despite the appellant’s claim that it had not received the subsidy, required reconsideration.

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or specific legal doctrine as the basis for its decision.

It notes that the appellant’s tariff petition was made under the Arunachal Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions for Tariff Determination from Renewable Energy Sources) Regulations, 2018, but does not interpret or apply those Regulations to decide the merits.

The Tribunal instead ordered reconsideration after noting the Commission’s express request, made during the hearing and in its written submissions, that the matter be remanded.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the Commission’s treatment of the civil-works costs, flood-related expenditure, or subsidy was legally or factually correct.

Given the Commission’s request for remand, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to return those disputed matters to the Commission for fresh consideration, with a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the parties.

It directed the Commission to endeavour to complete that exercise within three months.

The appeal was allowed to that extent, and any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.