Kerala HC directs KSERC to hold hybrid public hearings on renewable energy rules
The directive follows widespread complaints that the Draft Renewable Energy Regulations 2025 issued by the KSERC pose a serious threat to ordinary consumers, particularly those seeking to install rooftop solar systems above 3 kW.
The Court's decision comes in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala, which raised concerns after the Commission decided to hold only online hearings, abandoning the physical format followed in previous years.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji noted the petitioners' grievance that the practice of physical hearings had been discontinued without adequate justification.
In its order, the Court stated that physical hearings may be held in Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam, and Thiruvananthapuram, but left the selection of specific venues and dates to the discretion of the Commission. The Bench stressed that the Commission must consider accessibility, convenience, sufficiency, and participant safety when finalizing the logistics.
While the Commission had earlier cited law and order concerns as the reason for limiting hearings to an online format, the Court maintained that hybrid hearings are essential to ensure inclusivity and meaningful public participation.
The Court also directed the Commission to formulate and notify, in advance, a clear and transparent procedure for conducting the public hearings, thereby promoting openness and procedural fairness.
In summary, the High Court's order restores the option of physical attendance at public hearings in key locations across Kerala, in addition to online participation, and instructs the Commission to implement well-publicized and orderly procedures for the hearings.
This approach aims to enhance accessibility, inclusivity, and transparency in the regulatory process concerning renewable energy in the state.
The draft regulations limit net metering to just 3 kW, a drastic rollback from the 2020 regulations, which permitted up to 1000 kW—enabling participation by large consumers and community-based institutions, Prosumers Forum said.
Critics argue that the draft regulations disincentivize net metering in favor of unfair billing models that undervalue consumer-generated solar power. This exclusion could directly impact millions of consumers interested in installing rooftop solar systems above 3 kW.
"KSEB claims that prosumers burden the grid by consuming during peak hours and exporting during off-peak, increasing system costs. But this is misleading. Solar power from prosumers is consumed locally, reducing transmission loss and storage needs," the Forum clarified.
KSEB resells this power at three to four times the price, while paying prosumers as little as ₹3/unit. Their claim of a Rs500 crore loss due to prosumers is unverified, lacking audited data or regulatory backing.
In reality, prosumers support the grid by reducing peak demand and aiding load balancing.
The KSERC Draft Renewable Energy Regulations 2025 threatens to derail Kerala's clean energy future. Instead of encouraging a people-led transformation, it stifles grassroots solar adoption, jeopardizing public trust, climate goals, and energy freedom.
If passed in its current form, Kerala will continue to import costly power while letting its rooftop solar potential go to waste—an environmental, economic, and democratic failure, the Forum said.
UNI DS AAB
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Uttam tears into BRS, says rank irregularities at all levels in KLIP
Hyderabad: State Irrigation Minster N Uttam Kumar Reddy on Monday disclosed findings of the Judicial Commission on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project, directly blaming former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao for bypassing rules, ignoring expert warnings, and plunging the State into Rs 84,000 crore of high-interest debt. In a powerpoint presentation after the cabinet meeting, Uttam said the Commission's 660-page report, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, exposed how Telangana's most expensive project became an engineering and financial disaster due to unilateral and illegal decisions made during the BRS regime. 'We had promised the people that a judicial inquiry would be ordered into the Medigadda barrage collapse. After coming to power, we formed a Commission headed by Justice Ghose, and now that report has been submitted,' Uttam said. 'It clearly says KCR acted not as Chief Minister but as an administrative head issuing direct orders that went against institutional processes.' Quoting from the report, Minister Uttam said: 'The Commission has held that there is rank irregularity from the stage of conceptualisation of the project till the administrative approvals on March 1, 2016. These decisions were not those of the government, but of individuals.' He said the decision to shift the barrage from Tummidihatti to Medigadda was made solely by KCR, under the false pretext of water unavailability. 'The report says the reason for abandoning Tummidihatti does not appear sincere or honest,' Uttam added. The Minister reminded that even Union Minister Uma Bharti had confirmed water availability at Tummidihatti and the Central Water Commission (CWC) had approved the hydrology of the Pranahita-Chevella project in October 2014. 'But KCR's government wrote to the Centre saying there was no water, and that misrepresentation was found to be malicious by the Commission,' Uttam said. Minister Uttam revealed that an expert committee constituted by KCR's own government via G.O. Rt. No. 28 in January 2015 had recommended that building a barrage at Medigadda was unviable and not economical. 'They clearly said the barrage should be built at Vemanapally instead. That report was deliberately kept aside,' he said. 'The Commission observes that the suppression of this report was not accidental. It was done with intent to allow the CM and Irrigation Minister to go ahead with Medigadda against all expert advice,' he noted. Uttam Kumar Reddy laid out the timeline: 'The Medigadda barrage agreement was signed in 2016. The Kaleshwaram project was inaugurated in 2019. By October 21, 2023, Pillar 20 of Medigadda's Block-7 collapsed due to structural failure.' He said the Commission endorsed the NDSA's findings which cited serious planning and design flaws. 'The barrage was built on a permeable foundation, unsuitable for a storage structure. A cavity filled with soil was found instead of sand. Only 7,498 concrete samples were tested instead of the 37,000+ required,' he quoted from the report.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
BRS braces for battle with PPTs to rebut Ghose Commission's report
Hyderabad: The BRS leaders would be giving a powerpoint presentation on the Kaleshwaram Lift Irrigation Project in a counter to the report by the PC Ghose Commission. To begin with, Harish Rao would be giving a presentation at Telangana Bhavan on Tuesday, which would be telecast in the district party offices. According to party sources, during the recent meetings at the farmhouse, the BRS chief K Chandrashekar Rao has asked the senior leader T Harish Rao to prepare a counter report to the PC Ghose Commissions report so that the people can be made aware of the BRS side of the story. A senior leader of the party said that there were several rounds of meetings in KCR's farm house even before the Commission could give its report. The party leaders discussed how to move forward as it was expected that the report would be in favour of the government. The party chief wanted the leaders to explain to people about the positive impact the report has created in Telangana including the huge production of food grains including paddy, said the BRS leader. Party leaders said that the leaders in districts have been asked to present in the district offices and witness the powerpoint presentation being given in Telangana Bhavan on Tuesday. The BRS chief wanted to clear the air on the misinformation carried out against an engineering marvel like Kaleshwaram. The party leaders will insist on the fact that not the entire project but only two pillars were damaged. The Kaleshwaram project is not just Medigadda, it has three barrages (Medigadda, Annaram, Sundilla), 15 reservoirs, 21 pump houses, 19 substations, 203 km of tunnel, 141 tmcft of storage capacity and 240 tmcft of water utilization, said the BRS leader. Sources said that the BRS chief wanted the party leaders to go to the people and explain to them that the people in the government were trying to divert their attention from the serious issues and put the blame on BRS chief KCR. The BRS chief said in the meeting that the Congress party will be using this report for their advantage in the upcoming local body elections hence the report was released at this juncture. The party leaders also said that the party should focus on the bypolls which were inevitable with the Supreme Court's orders. Sources also said that the party may challenge the report of the Commission in the Court.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC: Pollution boards can impose damages
Pollution control boards are constitutionally empowered to impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages under the Water and Air Acts for actual or potential harm to the environment — not merely punitive penalties — the Supreme Court said in a landmark ruling that redefines the powers of environmental regulators. SC: Pollution boards can impose damages Delivering a judgment with far-reaching implications for environmental governance, a bench led by Justice PS Narasimha declared that such powers are not only legally valid under Sections 33A of the Water Act and 31A of the Air Act, but are also a 'necessary concomitant of the fundamental rights of citizens who suffer environmental wrongs and the duties of a statutory regulator.' While setting aside a 2012 ruling of the Delhi high court that stripped pollution control boards of their authority to seek environmental damages, the court underscored that remediation and prevention, not just punishment, must lie at the heart of environmental regulation in India. 'This order is a very good development. In fact, this was a concern with Air and Water acts because earlier they were excessively focused on punitive action which led to criminalisation. That was not a good tool to drive change. Civil penalties are very important tools to drive action but they were either imposed by NGT or by Supreme Court,' said Anumita Roychowdhury, executive director, Centre for Science and Environment. The bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Misra, drew a critical distinction between punitive penalties imposed after finding legal violations, and restitutionary damages, which may be imposed even ex-ante -- before actual environmental harm occurs. In doing so, the court reinforced the preventive role of regulatory authorities, aligning Indian law with global environmental principles such as 'polluter pays' and precautionary action. 'Environmental regulators can impose and collect restitutionary or compensatory damages in the form of fixed sums or require furnishing of bank guarantees as an ex-ante measure…These powers are incidental and ancillary to their statutory empowerment and are critical to preventing environmental degradation,' it held. Importantly, the court clarified that such damages are not punitive fines and therefore do not require the procedural rigour mandated for criminal prosecution. Instead, they serve as compensatory tools aimed at restoring degraded ecosystems or mitigating potential environmental harm. The judgment draws from the Indian constitutional framework, particularly Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (citizens' fundamental duty to safeguard natural resources). The bench reasoned that in the face of climate change and rising pollution, restoration of the environment is a core constitutional obligation and not just a statutory function. 'Our constitutionalism bears the hallmark of an expansive interpretation of fundamental rights…But such creative expansion is only a job half done if the depth of the remedies, consequent upon infringement, remain shallow,' it noted. The court called environmental protection 'perhaps the most significant duty' imposed under Article 51A, and asserted that regulators must be allowed to act with foresight and autonomy. It emphasised the importance of institutional integrity, independence from government and industrial control and domain expertise within the pollution control boards. The judgment further consolidated the 'polluter pays' principle into Indian jurisprudence, observing that it applies in three scenarios -- when regulatory thresholds are breached causing environmental damage; when no thresholds are breached, yet damage occurs; and when there is a likelihood or risk of environmental damage, even if no harm has occurred yet. In all three instances, the court held, pollution control boards are duty-bound to act, not merely after the fact, but proactively. 'Environmental regulators have a compelling duty to adopt and apply preventive measures irrespective of actual environmental damage. A restrictive interpretation of Sections 33A and 31A would encumber the boards' ability to discharge their duty.' 'This is very good because precautionary action gives you space to drive implementing agencies to enable implementation. More importantly, the polluter pays principle helps in mobilizing additional resources to meet the cost of implementation. For example in Delhi, trucks pay environmental compensation charge, big diesel cars also pay env compensation and there is a cess on diesel. These helped create dedicated funds meant for meeting pollution control measures,' Roychowdhury said. Stressing the importance of democratic participation in environmental governance, the court said future rules must include provisions enabling citizen complaints and community involvement in regulatory oversight. It added that pollution control boards, being the first line of defence, must be accessible, transparent, and accountable. While expanding the powers of regulators, the court emphasised that restitutionary powers be exercised with transparency, fairness, and procedural certainty, and be guided by subordinate legislation in the form of formal rules and regulations. These rules, the court said, must spell out methods for assessing environmental damage, criteria for calculating compensation, natural justice safeguards for affected parties, and mechanisms to ensure public participation in the complaint and enforcement process. The court took note of existing guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in December 2022, pursuant to National Green Tribunal directions, but insisted they must now be codified as binding rules to lend them legal legitimacy and enforceability. 'Boards can decide whether a polluting entity needs to be punished or whether the situation demands immediate restoration-- or both. What matters is that their decision is guided by principle, not arbitrariness,' it said.
