Summary:
—-
### Key Facts
1. **Connectivity holder**: APPL (subsidiary of HCSPL).
2. **PPA holder**: Another wholly owned subsidiary of HCSPL – **Hexa Energy MH10 Private Limited (HEMPL)** – executed a PPA with SECI for 100 MW of renewable power from a hybrid project located at Mandsaur.
3. **Request made by HCSPL** (email dated 11.12.2025): Convert APPL’s 200 MW connectivity from the **Land/BG Route** to the **LoA/PPA Route** (Regulation 11A(4)) using the PPA executed by HEMPL.
4. **CTUIL’s rejection** (email dated 09.01.2026): Conversion denied because the connectivity grantee (APPL) is not the PPA-holding entity (HEMPL).
5. **CTUIL’s compliance deadline** (email dated 23.01.2026): APPL must submit land documents by **27.02.2026**, failing which action under Regulation 11B (revocation/cancellation) will follow.
### Petitioner’s Main Arguments
– Regulation **15.1** permits inter-se utilisation of connectivity among subsidiary companies of the same parent company.
– Regulation **11A(5** ) allows conditions subsequent (land documents, financial closure) to be fulfilled by a subsidiary executing the project.
– Therefore, PPA executed by HEMPL should be valid for converting APPL’s connectivity.
– CTUIL’s rigid interpretation defeats the regulatory intent and commercial practicality.
### Respondent CTUIL’s Counter-Arguments
– GNA Regulations are **entity-specific**, not group-level.
– Regulation 11A(4) requires **the same legal entity** to:
– Hold the connectivity, **and**
– Hold the PPA/LOA for conversion.
– Regulation 15.1 permits **utilisation of connectivity** (injection/drawal of power), **not** use of compliance documents for eligibility.
– Regulation 11A(5) relaxes **execution mechanics**, not **eligibility thresholds**.
– Relied on **CERC’s earlier order dated 12.05.2024** in *Petition No. 9/MP/2024* (ACME case), where similar plea was rejected.
### CERC’s Analysis & Decision
The Commission **disposed of the IA without granting interim protection**. Key findings:
1. **Regulation 15.1 interpretation** – “Utilisation of connectivity” means **injection or drawal of power**, not using another entity’s PPA for route conversion.
2. **Regulation 11A(4) is clear** – Only the entity that has been granted final connectivity and also holds a PPA/LOA can apply for conversion.
3. **Regulation 11A(5) misinterpreted** – It allows the *subsidiary executing the project* to comply with land/financial closure/COD requirements, **but** all such compliances must be in the name of **a single executing entity** (for part or full capacity). It does **not** allow splitting compliance milestones across different subsidiaries.
4. **No prima facie case** for interim relief – CTUIL’s actions are consistent with the plain language of the regulations and binding precedent.
5. **No protection from coercive action** – The request to restrain CTUIL from revoking/cancelling connectivity was **denied**.
The plea to exercise power under **Regulations 41 or 42** (relaxation/removal of difficulty) will be examined in the **main petition** (75/MP/2026), not in this IA.
—
## Key Business Points
| # | Business Point |
|—|—————-|
| 1 | **Connectivity is entity-specific, not a group asset** – Even within the same corporate group, connectivity rights and compliance obligations belong strictly to the legal entity to which connectivity was granted. |
| 2 | **PPA holder and connectivity holder must be identical for route conversion** – To convert from Land/BG Route to LoA/PPA Route under Regulation 11A(4), the same company must both hold the connectivity and own the PPA/LOA. |
| 3 | **“Utilisation of connectivity” ≠ use of documents** – Regulation 15.1 permits power injection/drawal by parent or subsidiary, but does **not** allow one subsidiary’s PPA to be used for another subsidiary’s connectivity conversion. |
| 4 | **Project execution flexibility (Reg 11A(5)) has limits** – A subsidiary can execute the project and comply with land/financial closure/COD requirements, but all those compliances must be in the name of **one executing entity** (partial or full capacity). You cannot split land docs for one subsidiary and PPA for another. |
| 5 | **No interim relief against regulatory deadlines** – CERC will not stay land document submission deadlines or protect against revocation/cancellation simply because a group company holds a PPA elsewhere. |
| 6 | **Corporate structuring must align with GNA Regulations upfront** – Developers cannot rely on group-level flexibility after connectivity is granted. The entity applying for connectivity should be the same entity that will hold the PPA (or obtain a PPA in its own name before seeking conversion). |
| 7 | **Main petition may test relaxation powers (Reg 41/42)** – The larger question of whether CERC can exercise its “removal of difficulty” or “relaxation” powers to permit group-level compliance is still pending in the main petition, but interim protection was denied. |
| 8 | **Risk of connectivity revocation is real** – If land documents are not submitted by the deadline (e.g., 27.02.2026), CTUIL can proceed with revocation/cancellation under Regulation 11B without waiting for final outcome of the main petition. |
—
For more information please see below link:
