Nagpur: Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited’s (MSEDCL) multi-year tariff (MYT) review petition came under intense fire at a public hearing conducted by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) on Tuesday, with consumer representatives, solar industry experts, political leaders and industrial bodies terming the move “illegal, premature and anti-consumer.”
Out of 89 stakeholders who filed objections and suggestions, 24 made detailed oral submissions, collectively accusing MSEDCL of procedural violations, regulatory overreach and policies that could cripple industries and derail renewable energy growth in Maharashtra.
Gold Rate
Feb 11th, 2026 - Time 11.45Hrs
Industries under pressure
Atul Londhe, Spokesperson of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC), said the State’s electricity tariffs are already among the highest in the country, pushing industries to the brink. “Neighbouring states offer cheaper electricity and far more consumer-friendly renewable energy policies. Maharashtra is losing its competitive edge,” Londhe said.
He demanded that the existing 10 kW exemption threshold be increased to 15 kW to provide relief to small commercial establishments such as restaurants and showrooms struggling with rising operational costs. He also sought a probe into coal procurement for power generation, questioning whether Maharashtra was paying disproportionately higher rates.
Solar sector raises red flag over grid support charges
Solar energy expert Sudhir Budhay mounted a technical and procedural challenge to MSEDCL’s proposal, particularly on Grid Support Charges (GSC) and Renewable Energy (RE) banking regulations. He argued that the 5,000 MWh threshold, a precondition under the MYT order for imposing GSC, has not been demonstrably crossed, as MSEDCL has failed to provide verified data. As per the existing MYT framework, once the threshold is crossed, a fresh petition and public consultation are mandatory. “Without crossing the threshold or filing a fresh petition, this move is both premature and procedurally incorrect,” Budhay asserted.
He further warned that restricting renewable energy banking to the same time slot and same month would make existing solar projects financially unviable. “Solar generation is concentrated during daytime. Curtailing banking flexibility would destroy project economics and retroactively alter contractual terms, undermining investor confidence and renewable energy promotion,” he said.
Employment at risk, entrepreneurs under threat
Several solar aggregators including Rahul Kolte, Nilesh Dhote, Jayesh Gantade, Abhijit Shukla, Karan Hazare and Suraj Gupta echoed similar concerns, stating that the revised 10 kW threshold and GSC proposals threaten jobs in the rooftop solar sector.
Solar entrepreneur Pranay Vijayakar made a startling revelation: “I am receiving threats of police FIRs from my existing customers who feel cheated after the sudden tariff changes.”
Industry stakeholders maintained that decentralised solar generation reduces load on the grid, enhances reliability and significantly cuts transmission losses, yet policy changes are discouraging its growth.
Consumers question regulatory flip-flop
Mahendra Jichkar, representing consumer interests, questioned why MSEDCL is opposing the very tariff order issued in March last year. “It is strange that MSEDCL has chosen to challenge the order. Despite lengthy hearings, MERC stayed its own ruling, leaving consumers confused and dejected,” he said.
Jichkar stressed that tariffs should be fixed for the entire control period instead of mid-year revisions, which create uncertainty and financial distress for consumers. “It must be predictable and affordable,” he insisted.
Legal battle intensifies: ‘Reject petition to avoid endless litigation’
RB Goenka, Chairman of the Energy Forum of Vidarbha Industries Association, strongly urged MERC to reject the review petition outright, calling it legally untenable.
“This review petition does not fit within the legal framework. The High Court has already clarified this in Para 25 of its order,” Goenka said.
The High Court had quashed the tariff order and stayed its implementation for four weeks, which expired on December 3, 2024. It ruled that thereafter the tariff issued by the Commission in Case No. 217 of 2024 would apply. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling and directed that relevant provisions remain applicable until MERC passes an order on the review petition.
The apex court had granted 12 weeks for MERC to issue a fresh order, a deadline that expired on February 9, 2026. However, no order was issued till then.
“Failure to issue an order within the Supreme Court’s timeline amounts to violation of its directions,” Goenka said, questioning whether any new order would be applied retrospectively from July 1, 2025.
He further alleged that MSEDCL failed to issue power bills as per Case No. 217 of 2024 after December 3, 2025, calling it a breach of Supreme Court directives.
Allegations of ‘free power’ profiteering
Industry experts also levelled serious allegations against MSEDCL, accusing it of profiting from so-called “lapsed” solar power.
Under current restrictive banking rules, excess electricity generated by private consumers is wiped off their accounts if not used within prescribed time slots. However, stakeholders claim that instead of letting the energy go waste, MSEDCL sells this surplus power without compensating the original producers or transparently accounting for such sales.
“If true, this means renewable energy producers are being penalised while the utility benefits from their generation,” an industry representative remarked.
With mounting legal questions, investor concerns and growing industry unrest, the MERC’s decision on the review petition is now being closely watched. Stakeholders have made it clear: any move perceived as anti-consumer or anti-renewable could trigger prolonged litigation and further shake investor confidence in Maharashtra’s power sector.
