Petition of GERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations and Gujarat Renewable Energy Policy for commissioning of 4 MW AC Solar Power Project at Village – Dungri, Taluka-Valia District Bharuch – EQ
Summary:
—-
#### 1. Core Dispute: Delay in Project Commissioning
– **The Project:** A 4.00 MW (3.90 MW AC) solar power project under the **captive use category**.
– **Petitioner’s Argument for Delay:** The developer blamed the utilities for delays in signing the connection agreement and providing estimates for supervision charges. They claimed the agreement was ultimately executed only on **April 1-2, 2025**, despite applying for connectivity in February 2024.
– **Respondent’s (GETCO/DGVCL) Argument:** They countered that the Technical Feasibility Report (TFR) was issued on **April 23, 2024**. The project, including the evacuation line, was required to be completed within 12 months, i.e., by **April 22, 2025**.
– **Commission’s Observation:** The Commission noted that the developer’s own Bank Guarantee had expired in September 2025 and had not been renewed. Also, the onus for applying for supervision charges estimate lay with the developer.
– **Business Implication:** This highlights a common tension in infrastructure projects. While the developer faced delays from the utility (late agreement signing), they also failed to meet deadlines and maintain financial instruments (BG). It underscores the need for developers to diligently pursue all approvals and keep their guarantees valid.
#### 2. Key Issue: Expired Bank Guarantee (BG)
– **Facts:** The developer submitted a Bank Guarantee of **₹20,00,000** on September 3, 2024, valid until September 1, 2025.
– **Current Status:** The BG had expired by the time of the hearing (March 2026).
– **Developer’s Response:** The developer expressed willingness to extend the BG and sought time to do so.
– **Commission’s Order:** The Commission directed the developer to furnish the extended Bank Guarantee in accordance with the revised schedule **within three weeks**.
– **Business Implication:** This is a critical financial compliance point. An expired BG can jeopardize the project’s standing with the utility and the regulator. The developer must now arrange for a fresh or extended BG, which has cost implications.
#### 3. Secondary Issue: Request to Change Power Sale Purpose
– **Petitioner’s Request:** Sought permission to change the project’s purpose from “third-party sale” to “sale of electricity to DISCOM.”
– **Respondent’s Objection:** GETCO/DGVCL argued that this was a separate and distinct issue, not part of the original petition for time extension. It would require separate proceedings under applicable rules.
– **Commission’s Stance:** The order notes the objection but does not rule on this request, implicitly agreeing that it cannot be adjudicated in the current matter.
– **Business Implication:** This shows that regulatory filings must be precise. A petitioner cannot use a hearing for one specific relief (time extension) to introduce an entirely new commercial request (changing the offtaker). This would require a fresh petition.
#### 4. Procedural History and Next Steps
– **Hearing Date:** The matter was heard on February 26, 2026.
– **Order Date:** March 11, 2026.
– **Directions from the Commission:**
1. **Joint Meeting:** Both parties were directed to hold a joint meeting to discuss all issues and file the outcome with the Commission within three weeks.
2. **Renew BG:** The developer was directed to extend the Bank Guarantee within three weeks.
3. **Next Hearing:** To be intimated separately.
– **Business Implication:** The Commission is pushing for an out-of-court settlement or at least a narrowed-down dispute through a joint meeting before scheduling the next hearing. This is a common regulatory approach to reduce litigation.
—-
For more information please see below link:
