#gridaccess

[energylineindia1]

Renewable connectivity dispute tests bank guarantee rules under GERC

The renewable connectivity dispute before GERC is emerging as a key test case for bank guarantee enforcement under RE policy Gujarat. Multiple petitions against GETCO connectivity issue have been fully argued, with orders awaited.

The GERC bank guarantee case involving Durga Processors seeks recovery of Rs 25 lakh and associated charges, raising questions on refund eligibility. This renewable connectivity dispute highlights ambiguity in how utilities treat provisional payments.

Viowin Renewables has challenged encashment of a Rs 2.10 crore guarantee, significantly increasing the financial implications. The renewable connectivity dispute in this case focuses on protecting developer interests against utility actions.

In a related matter, Rolex Rings has agreed to withdraw its High Court petition to allow GERC proceedings to continue. This renewable connectivity dispute introduces force majeure considerations and connectivity extension claims.EnergylineIndia.com highlights that the renewable connectivity dispute could set regulatory precedents. The renewable connectivity dispute is likely to influence future connectivity agreements and BG enforcement practices, Energy Law, Renewables India, GERC Orders, Power Sector, Grid Access.

[energylineindia1]

Power Regulator

A recent Central Electricity Regulatory Commission order has reinforced a strict boundary between commercial power sale arrangements and transmission access frameworks, an issue of sustained focus for every POWER REGULATOR observer. The Commission rejected Avikiran Solar India Pvt Ltd’s request to align the start of its Long-Term Access with a revised SECI commissioning schedule, holding that such alignment has no basis under the access regime.

The dispute arose when CTUIL operationalised ASIPL’s LTA once the ISTS became available, even though the project’s COD had been delayed under SECI-approved force majeure extensions. ASIPL argued that transmission charges should not accrue during this pre-COD gap and sought relief through waiver and relaxation provisions. The POWER REGULATOR was unmoved.

CERC clarified that LTA commencement is governed solely by the access grant and system readiness. PPA extensions—no matter how valid—do not rewrite LTA timelines. Once access is operationalised, liability follows. This interpretation is consistent with how the POWER REGULATOR has treated similar disputes across renewable portfolios.

The ruling also closed the door on using ISTS waivers as a pre-COD shield. According to the Commission, waivers apply only after generation and supply begin, not during periods when access exists but generation does not. Requests to invoke relaxation powers were rejected, with the POWER REGULATOR finding no regulatory hardship warranting intervention.Commercially, the order carries weight. CTUIL invoices exceeding Rs 6 crore were upheld, confirming that early access decisions can create material exposure. For developers and lenders alike, the POWER REGULATOR has sent an unambiguous message: align access applications with realistic construction timelines, because the framework does not pause for project delays, Power regulator, CERC LTA ruling, SECI wind projects, ISTS waiver interpretation, transmission tariff liability.