BENGALURU, Jan 23 (Reuters) – India’s Adani Green Energy posted a 99% drop in third‑quarter profit on Friday, as higher finance costs inflated its ​expenses and offset gains from strong power sales and improved capacity ‌utilisation.

Shares of Adani Group’s green arm were down 13.8%.

Group stocks fell 2% to 11% after the ‌U.S. SEC sought court approval to serve summons to Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani by email in a fraud and $265 million bribery case.

For Adani Green, consolidated profit slumped to 50 million rupees ($544,051.88) in the quarter ended December 31, from 4.74 billion rupees ⁠a year earlier.

A sharp ‌27.14% rise in expenses to 29.61 billion rupees and a 35.73% surge in finance costs absorbed most of the company’s topline, ‍even as power sales remained strong.

The company also booked a 1.03 billion rupees from its associates and joint ventures, offering a modest cushion to earnings.

Power consumption in India is expected ​to rise as the economy expands, requiring an estimated 40% increase in ‌coal‑fired capacity to more than 307 gigawatts by 2035, according to government projections.

The country, which currently meets about a third of its power demand from thermal plants, aims to achieve net‑zero emissions by 2070 and plans to more than double its renewable capacity to 500 gigawatts as part of that effort.

Finance costs for ⁠the company include interest on borrowings as well ​as currency‑related gains and losses on its foreign‑currency ​loans and the impact of derivative hedges used to manage those exposures.

The renewable energy arm of billionaire Gautam Adani’s group, which operates ‍solar, wind and ⁠hybrid assets across India, said revenue from power supply rose 21% to 19.93 billion rupees, helped by 5.6 GW of capacity additions over the ⁠past year.

The company said the growth also reflected strong plant performance and the commissioning of new ‌capacity at resource‑rich sites in Khavda, Gujarat, and in Rajasthan.

($1 = 91.9030 ‌Indian rupees)

(Reporting by Yagnoseni Das in Bengaluru)

By Adam Pagnucco.

Yesterday was the deadline for candidates to file their Annual 2026 campaign finance reports.  It’s an important moment in this election season as candidates show their financial strength heading into the period when voters are paying attention.  For candidates in traditional financing, the next report is not due until April 21.  So normally, I would be crunching and reporting on all of these numbers, at least for candidates in Montgomery County.

But I’m not going to do that quite yet.

The reason is that the State Board of Elections (SBE) just rolled out a new reporting system for campaign finances and many candidates are struggling to use it.  I have been using this data for almost 20 years and I have never heard complaints of such volume and ferocity as those I have received this week.  (An aside: I’m a former campaign treasurer and you better believe I will never be one again after this!)  I can’t get into the specifics of these complaints because it would risk compromising my sources, something I will never do.  But I expect there to be MANY late reports and amended reports as campaigns try to report accurate information while minimizing fines – fines for which most of them bear no responsibility.

As an analyst, these failures impede my ability to analyze campaign finance data.  First, SBE has inexplicably removed all campaign finance information predating the 2019-22 cycle from its website.  Previously, the site included data from 2005 on.  I asked SBE to fix this issue last month.  They told me it would be fixed.  It has not been fixed.  Until it is, my ability to provide historical context is limited at best.

Second, I have noticed that on some reports, the summary sheets do not match the totals of downloaded data.  I don’t know why.  For now, I am going to rely on the spreadsheet downloads, but that is going to limit my processing speed.

Third, loans previously appeared in contribution downloads.  Now they don’t.  Instead, I have to locate them in individual filings and manually enter them.  There is no reason why this change needed to occur.

Fourth, aggregate totals for contributions appear to be inaccurate in some reports.  That’s a big deal for candidates in public financing, who are currently limited to $500 per individual in this cycle.  If their aggregates are inaccurately reported as higher than $500, they will appear to be in violation of the public financing law when they in fact did nothing wrong.

Finally, I expect a significant volume of amendments as candidates work through their issues with the reporting software.  That’s a problem because the data in any analysis that I do may shift without warning.  Analyses of data like this take a long time, and changes due to state reporting issues will undermine that work.  Let’s just stipulate that when I start posting analyses, the resulting data will be estimates at best.

As a result of the above issues and others, I’m reluctant to start crunching this data right now.  At minimum, I’m going to wait a few days while candidates resolve their issues with SBE.

New reporting systems always have glitches and this one has to cover hundreds of accounts and millions of records from all across Maryland.  SBE should have rolled out this new system at the start of a campaign cycle when the stakes are lower and glitches can be fixed quietly.  By rolling it out in the heat of election season, when lots of new candidates are filing and all of them are scrambling to show their strength, SBE has compounded its problems and hindered analysis of campaign finances.

All of this is tremendously unfair to the folks who are running for office as well as their treasurers.  For their sake as well as that of the public, these problems must be fixed as soon as possible.

The financial accounts of the general government sector cover transactions in financial assets and liabilities as well as the stock of financial assets and liabilities.

The net lending (+) / net borrowing (-) (also known as surplus/deficit), together with the gross debt of the general government, are among the most important indicators in government finance statistics. 

Generally, the movement in government debt can be linked with the government balance: in case a deficit is observed, one would expect to see an increase in debt, and in case of a surplus, some of it could be used to repay debt. However, this is not necessarily the case. Deficits can also be financed by the sale of financial assets, or alternatively, debt can be raised to finance the acquisition of financial assets. Therefore, the evolution of quarterly debt is also linked to the net acquisition of financial assets. The incurrence of liabilities not covered in the definition of the general government gross debt (mainly ‘other accounts, payable’), as well as the valuation differences and discrepancies, also play a role in explaining the change in debt.

Source datasets: gov_10q_ggnfa, gov_10q_ggfa, gov_10q_ggdebt

In the third quarter of 2025, the financing of the deficit (2.9% of quarterly GDP) explained the main part of the change in gross debt (4.5% of quarterly GDP) of the euro area. At the same time, the financing of the net acquisitions of financial assets (0.5% of GDP) and the repayment of liabilities not included in the general government gross debt (1.0% of GDP) also impacted the debt. Other differences between the change in debt and the deficit comprise notably certain revaluations of debt, adjustments between transactions and the change in stock at face value as well as discrepancies (0.1% of quarterly GDP). 

This information comes from data on quarterly government finance statistics published by Eurostat today. The article presents a handful of findings from the more detailed Statistics Explained article on government finance statistics – quarterly data.

In 2020 and 2021, due to COVID-19 containment measures and policy responses to mitigate the impact of those measures, the change in debt was mainly influenced by large deficits, as well as acquisitions of financial assets.