Petition of the CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the interState Transmission System) Regulations of the connectivity grantees prior to commercial operation – EQ

Summary:

—

### **1. Overview**
This is a **Record of Proceedings** from the **Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)** regarding **Petition No. 16/MP/2026**.

– **Petitioner:** Cannice Renewables Energy Pvt. Ltd. (CREPL) and Another
– **Respondent:** Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL)
– **Date of Hearing:** 16th April 2026
– **Nature of Petition:** Filed under **Section 79** of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with **Regulations 11A(6), 41 and 42** of the *CERC (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022* (commonly known as the **GNA Regulations**).

—

### **2. Subject Matter of the Petition**

The Petition sought **approval for a change in the shareholding pattern of connectivity grantees** *prior to the commercial operation date (COD) of the project*.

In simpler terms:
CREPL had been granted **connectivity** to the inter-state transmission system for a renewable energy project. Before the project achieved commercial operation, there was a **change in its shareholding pattern**. Under the GNA Regulations, such a change may require regulatory approval. CREPL approached CERC for that approval.

—

### **3. Hearing Details – 16th April 2026**

**Coram (Bench):**
– Shri Jishnu Barua – Chairperson
– Shri Ramesh Babu V. – Member
– Shri Harish Dudani – Member
– Shri Ravinder Singh Dhillon – Member

**Present for Petitioner (CREPL):**
– Shri Ramanuj Kumar, Advocate

**Present for Respondent (CTUIL):**
– Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Advocate
– Shri Swapnil Verma
– Shri Siddharth Sharma
– Shri Lashit Sharma

—

### **4. Key Submissions & Proceedings**

| Party | Submission |
|——-|————-|
| **CTUIL (Respondent)** | The **Detailed Procedure** envisaged under **Regulation 11A(6)(c)** of the GNA Regulations has been **published on 10th April 2026**. Therefore, the present Petition has **lost its foundation**. CREPL should instead approach CTUIL **directly** by way of an application seeking appropriate relief. |
| **CREPL (Petitioner)** | They have already spent **around six months** pursuing this Petition. Since their case is now **covered by the Detailed Procedure**, the Commission may either: (a) pass an appropriate order, or (b) permit CREPL to file an application before CTUIL under the Detailed Procedure, with a **direction to CTUIL to take action within 30 days**. |
| **CTUIL (in response)** | The Detailed Procedure **already prescribes** a timeline of **60 days** for processing an application. CTUIL objected to being directed to follow a shorter 30-day timeline. |

—

For more information please see below link: