Policy Crossover Sparks a New Solar Tariff Debate

The Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (UGVCL) has approached the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) with a review petition that reopens a key regulatory debate in Gujarat’s solar sector what does “commissioned” really mean when two policy frameworks overlap?

At the center of the issue is GERC’s May 2024 order in Petition 2130 of 2022, which had ruled that Arka Energy’s solar projects qualified under the 2015 tariff order rather than the May 2020 tariff regime.

By challenging that conclusion, UGVCL is asking the Commission to revisit how readiness and commissioning were interpreted during Gujarat’s solar policy transition phase.

UGVCL’s Review Petition: A Question of Timing

According to UGVCL, the Commission’s earlier order overlooked factual details that could have changed the outcome.

The utility argues that:

The solar plants were not physically ready by March 2020, the last operative month of the 2015 tariff policy.

Rectification of line work and submission of commissioning documents occurred between 31 July and 4 August 2020.

GEDA’s commissioning certificates were issued even later, in September 2020, well after the 2015 window closed.

By that time, the 2020 tariff order was already in force.

What the Commission Said Earlier

GERC’s May 2024 decision took a more flexible view, treating the projects as having achieved readiness within the 2015 policy period. It held that delays were caused by the non-availability of feeder panels from GETCO and UGVCL, which were beyond the developers’ control.

But UGVCL’s review now claims that this conclusion contained “errors apparent on the face of record” and that factual assumptions about project readiness were unsupported by evidence.

Why This Matters for Gujarat’s Solar Developers

The outcome of this case could reshape how Gujarat — and perhaps other states — interpret commissioning milestones during policy transitions.

If UGVCL’s arguments prevail, developers who claimed eligibility under the 2015 tariff might instead fall under the 2020 tariff regime, resulting in lower tariffs and altered project revenues.

For investors and lenders, this means greater clarity (or risk) when projects sit on the edge of regulatory change.

The Larger Question: Intent vs. Completion

Should tariff eligibility be determined by regulatory intent, acknowledging that external factors delayed final paperwork — or should it strictly follow the actual commissioning date?

GERC’s review ruling will test that balance and set a precedent for future energy policy transitions.

This case, while technical, symbolizes a larger truth about India’s renewable energy journey: as the sector matures, regulatory precision becomes just as important as policy ambition.

What Comes Next

GERC will decide whether to admit and re-examine the review petition.

The Commission’s interpretation could affect multiple projects that were completed around mid-2020.

A final ruling may establish how “commissioned” is defined for tariff eligibility going forward.

Takeaway

This isn’t just a dispute between one utility and one developer — it’s about drawing a clear boundary between two eras of solar policy.

Whether the Commission sides with regulatory leniency or procedural discipline, the outcome will echo across Gujarat’s solar sector for years to come.