Petition of CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations of the land required for grant of final connectivity – EQ

Summary:

—

### Reliefs Sought by SUCRL (Main Petition & IAs)
1. Relax timeline for land document submission – allow **12 months from final grant** or **12 months from issuance of coordinates** (instead of 18 months from in‑principle grant).
2. Alternatively, permit land document submission **18‑24 months before start date (31.12.2029)**.
3. Transfer/reallocate connectivity to another Bikaner substation with finalised location and earlier start date (Dec 2027).
4. **Return Land BG (₹40 Cr) and Conn‑BG2 & BG3** – retain only 5% of Land BG + Conn‑BG1 as nominal security, given delay is solely CTUIL’s fault.
5. Interim protection from coercive action (revocation, BG encashment).

### Key Regulatory Developments During Pendency
– **Third Amendment to GNA Regulations** (effective 09.09.2025) inserted a **proviso to Regulation 11A(1)** :
If final grant is issued **without** final/tentative coordinates, the applicant gets **9 months from communication of tentative coordinates** to submit land documents.
– **CERC Suo‑moto Order (14/SM/2025, 08.12.2025)** clarified:
Even where **final grant has not been issued** due to CTUIL’s delay, such entities shall be permitted **at least 9 months from communication of tentative coordinates** to furnish land documents.
– CTUIL admitted it could not issue final grant to SUCRL and also raised a **systemic issue**: ~60 GW of connectivity applications (including Bikaner‑V, Barmer‑III, Bhadla‑IV, etc.) are stuck because transmission planning is incomplete (no nearby load centres, need for HVDC, long implementation timelines).

### CERC’s Analysis & Decision

#### Issue 1 – Land Document Submission Timeline
– Under the **3rd Amendment + Order in 14/SM/2025**, SUCRL will get **at least 9 months from communication of coordinates** – therefore the **26.01.2026 deadline does not survive**.
– SUCRL’s request for **12 months** (instead of 9) or **18‑24 months before start date** – **not granted at this stage**.
– Request for transfer/reallocation to another substation – **not directed**; SUCRL may use **Regulation 11C** (transfer/reallocation provisions) if eligible.

#### Issue 2 – Return of Bank Guarantees (Land BG & Conn‑BGs)
– SUCRL wanted the same treatment as **voluntary withdrawal** (Regulation 3.7.3): return 95% Land BG + Conn‑BG2/BG3, forfeit only 5% Land BG + Conn‑BG1.
– **CERC held**: Such a dispensation is **not permissible** under existing regulations for a live application. Different treatment would require regulatory amendment after stakeholder consultation.
– **However**, given the **exceptional planning uncertainty** admitted by CTUIL and the fact that the matter involves **60 GW of stuck applications**, CERC invoked its **power to remove difficulty (Regulation 42)** and ordered:

> **For SUCRL (and all similarly placed applicants)**
> CTUIL shall, **within 30 days** of this Order, give an **option to withdraw** the connectivity application within **2 months** of receiving CTUIL’s communication.
> **If withdrawn:**
> – Land BG (₹40 Cr) and **all Conn‑BGs** returned within 15 days.
> – **Forfeiture:** Only **50% of application fee** (balance 50% returned).
> – *No forfeiture of Land BG or Conn‑BGs.*
> **If not withdrawn:**
> – Land BG and Conn‑BGs continue to be retained as per normal regulations.

—

## Key Business Points

| # | Business Point |
|—|—————-|
| 1 | **Deadline for land documents automatically extended** – Where CTUIL has not issued final grant or communicated substation coordinates, the 18‑month deadline from in‑principle grant **does not apply**. Affected developers get **at least 9 months from communication of tentative coordinates** (per 14/SM/2025). |
| 2 | **No coercive action for non‑compliance before coordinates** – CTUIL cannot revoke connectivity or encash BGs for failure to submit land documents when coordinates are not provided. |
| 3 | **Withdrawal option without heavy penalty** – Developers stuck in “planning limbo” (CTUIL unable to issue final grant) can **withdraw** their connectivity application and get **100% of Land BG and Conn‑BGs back**, forfeiting only **50% of application fee** (not 5% Land BG or Conn‑BG1). |
| 4 | **Time‑bound process for withdrawal** – CTUIL must give option within **30 days** of this Order; developers have **2 months** from that communication to decide. |
| 5 | **Covers ~60 GW of stuck applications** – The relief applies to all applicants at ISTS pooling stations where final grant cannot be issued due to transmission planning issues (Bikaner‑V, Barmer‑III, Bhadla‑IV, Ramgarh, Jalore, Sanchore, Pali, etc.). CTUIL must give wide publicity. |
| 6 | **No forced retention of BGs** – Developers who no longer wish to wait for uncertain transmission schemes can exit without losing large BG amounts (₹40 Cr Land BG + Conn‑BGs). |
| 7 | **Remaining in the queue means BGs stay** – If a developer chooses **not** to withdraw, Land BG and Conn‑BGs continue to be held by CTUIL under normal rules – no partial return of BGs. |
| 8 | **Transfer/reallocation not directed** – CERC did not order CTUIL to shift connectivity to another substation; developers must use Regulation 11C process if eligible. |
| 9 | **Regulatory innovation (Regulation 42)** – CERC used “power to remove difficulty” to craft a pragmatic solution for a systemic planning deadlock, without waiting for formal regulation amendment. |
| 10 | **CEA still deliberating load‑generation balance** – The underlying transmission planning issues (HVDC vs. EHVAC, distant load centres) remain unresolved; developers should monitor further CEA/CTUIL developments. |

—

For more information please see below link: