#gerc

-🐢

Yh

Gerson

A Regulatory Crossroads for Gujarat’s Power Sector

This week’s proceedings before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) are anything but routine.

Nine petitions — spanning GETCO, GUVNL, Suzlon, Concord Biotech, and J.B. Renewable — have converged to expose three structural pressure points shaping the future of Gujarat’s power sector.

They show a state that’s expanding rapidly — compliant and ambitious — but where regulatory frameworks and permissions processes are struggling to keep pace.

Fault-Line 1: Legacy Orders vs Ground Reality — GETCO Pushes Back

Three GETCO petitions (2490/2025, 2563/2025, 2564/2025) seek amendments to Orders 1, 5, and 6 of 2024 that govern: • Transmission cost allocation • System-strengthening approvals • Load-flow and connectivity sequencing • Division of roles between GETCO, discoms, and private licensees

GETCO argues that the 2024 frameworks are no longer aligned with ground realities.

Industrial clusters have shifted, renewable evacuation pressures have grown, and port-SEZ loads are arriving faster than expected.

When the State Transmission Utility itself seeks to reopen foundational directives within a year, it’s clear that policy assumptions haven’t kept pace with operational change.

Respondents include every discom, Torrent Power, MPSEZ Utilities, GIFT Power Company, Jubilant, Aspen, and Deendayal Port Trust, indicating just how wide the impact is.

Fault-Line 2: Renewable Permission Bottlenecks — Suzlon, Concord, and J.B. Renewable

The second pressure point is operational — permissions and NOCs are lagging behind investment cycles.

Suzlon — A “NO GO / NO WTG” Decision After Full Compliance Suzlon’s 50 MW project met every connectivity condition: a ₹2.5 crore bank guarantee, supervision fees, and executed agreements. Then NIWE declared the Jetpur site a “NO GO / NO WTG Zone,” halting progress after capital had already been committed. Suzlon now seeks refunds for a project stalled by factors beyond its control.

J.B. Renewable — Policy Grants, Practice Denies A 2.10 MW captive wind plant tied to a 5,000 kVA consumer sought Medium-Term Open Access — allowed under policy for up to 50% captive use. Yet, approval was denied. The case highlights opaque decision-making and inconsistent application of open-access rules.

Concord Biotech — Penalised While Building for the Utility Under Option-III, GETCO required Concord to build a 3-km 66 kV underground line. Concord paid, used approved vendors, and began construction — but MGVCL issued demand-charge notices for delays. The irony: a consumer is penalised while constructing infrastructure for the grid itself.

These cases reveal permissions lagging behind Gujarat’s pro-renewable policy ambitions.

Fault-Line 3: Gas Tariff Rules Under Strain — The UNOSUGEN Shock

The third — and most contentious — issue concerns tariff valuation for gas-based power.

Two identical review petitions challenge GERC’s order on UNOSUGEN, which cut the plant’s fixed-cost entitlement from ₹228.54 crore to ₹7.03 crore — a ₹225-crore reduction.

Petitioners argue that the Commission: • Linked fixed-cost recovery to Plant Load Factor (PLF) instead of availability • Used an outdated ₹5.479/unit benchmark • Excluded ₹41.11 crore in regasification and transportation costs

This effectively underprices gas-based capacity, even though such plants remain essential for grid reliability, peaking, and balancing renewable intermittency.

The issue extends beyond one plant — it reflects a system-wide reluctance to acknowledge the full cost of flexible RLNG-based generation.

A Sector Undergoing a Stress Test, Not a Crisis

Across all nine filings, a single pattern emerges:

• Old directives are being reopened. • New renewable projects are hitting chokepoints. • Gas-based units are struggling with tariff constraints.

These are not signs of breakdown — they’re symptoms of transformation.

Gujarat’s power sector is growing faster than its regulatory architecture anticipated. Transmission frameworks designed for yesterday’s loads are being rewritten for tomorrow’s grid. Permissions meant for orderly renewable rollout are clashing with fast-moving investments. And tariff methodologies rooted in a coal-centric era are being tested by the economics of gas and flexibility.

This is not crisis — it’s recalibration.

The Bottom Line

Nine petitions. Five categories of entities. Three deep fault-lines.

Together, they reveal a power sector where regulation, investment, and system operations are no longer moving at the same speed.

The next set of Commission orders — on GETCO amendments, open-access permissions, connectivity refunds, and gas tariff reviews — will decide whether Gujarat’s regulatory framework evolves fast enough to match its growth.

Behind the careful language of “amendments” lies something deeper. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO) isn’t just fixing a few words in old regulatory orders—it’s reopening the foundation on which those orders rest.

Three petitions filed before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC)—Petition 2490, 2563, and 2564 of 2025—are all aimed at revisiting key 2024 directives (Order 1, Order 5, and Order 6). Together, they reveal a system-wide recalibration in how Gujarat plans, approves, and finances its transmission backbone.

What’s Really Going On

Each of these orders affects tariff structures, project approvals, and operational responsibilities. By pulling in every major discom—DGVCL, UGVCL, MGVCL, PGVCL—along with Torrent Power, MPSEZ Utilities, GIFT Power, Aspen, Jubilant, and Deendayal Port Trust, GETCO is making it clear: this isn’t about one clause or one project—it’s about aligning the rulebook with the grid’s fast-changing reality.

The 2024 orders had defined:

how transmission development charges (TDC) are structured and recovered,

sequencing of load-flow and connectivity approvals,

technical and capacity standards,

cost responsibilities for new bays, lines, and substation reinforcements,

and how new industrial or renewable load pockets are integrated.

Now, GETCO is saying: the ground has shifted.

When Planning Meets Reality

Transmission planning is neat on paper. Execution rarely is. Over the past year, several forces have collided with the 2024 framework:

industrial load shifting into new clusters,

accelerated renewable connectivity requests,

new SEZ and port-linked demand centers,

delays in land and right-of-way clearances,

and pressure from discoms to fast-track approvals without added cost.

These on-ground challenges have exposed a growing mismatch between regulatory design and operational flexibility.

GETCO’s petitions effectively tell the regulator:

“We can’t comply with these orders and meet real-world conditions at the same time.”

The Deeper Tension: Certainty vs Flexibility

GERC’s 2024 orders aimed for clarity—fixed rules, defined responsibilities, and standardized processes. But Gujarat’s grid is evolving too fast for rigidity.

If the 2024 rules remain unchanged:

projects could stall,

cost-sharing could become unfair,

and network reinforcements could turn obsolete before completion.

In short, GETCO is asking the Commission to let flexibility catch up with expansion.

Why Private Licensees Are Paying Attention

Private players like Torrent, MPSEZ Utilities, and GIFT Power are directly impacted. Any amendment affects:

bay allocation,

load approval timelines,

tariff pass-through,

and private grid expansion plans.

A single amendment can delay or accelerate an entire SEZ’s power rollout. That’s why everyone’s watching closely.

The Bigger Picture

GETCO’s move is not regulatory housekeeping—it’s institutional course correction. The State Transmission Utility wants to realign GERC’s 2024 orders with today’s field realities, ensuring that regulation doesn’t hold back Gujarat’s grid growth.

When the STU asks to reopen three foundational orders in one sweep, it signals one thing: the grid is evolving faster than the rulebook—and it’s time for the rulebook to catch up.

By a professional energy-sector journalist | Originally published on EnergyLineIndia.com

Gujarat’s winter power strategy is now in motion. Petition No. 2569 of 2025, filed before the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC), reveals Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited’s (GUVNL) detailed blueprint to manage the high-stakes December–March window — a season where volatility, not demand, defines the grid.

GUVNL’s move isn’t routine. It’s a deliberate hedge a winter power insurance policy designed to secure supply at predictable rates through Round-the-Clock (RTC) and peak power procurements.

This strategy ensures Gujarat won’t have to scramble later, when real-time prices spike.

Winter isn’t about demand it’s about volatility

Between December and March, Gujarat’s system faces sharper risks:

Wind collapses

Solar hours shrink

Hydro dispatch stays fixed

Industrial clusters run full throttle

GUVNL’s procurement design directly reflects this reality:

500–800 MW RTC power: the risk-absorbing base layer.

500–600 MW Peak power: the volatility shield for the 6–10 p.m. risk window.

By asking the Commission to adopt tariffs discovered through the DEEP portal’s reverse auction, GUVNL is paying a controlled premium now — instead of facing unpredictable costs later.

What bidder behaviour reveals

The petition’s technical reports tell a clear story about market psychology this winter:

RTC drew the most competition. Predictable revenue makes RTC contracts attractive for suppliers.

Peak slots saw fierce last-minute trimming. Everyone wanted the lucrative evening block, but margins were razor-thin.

Reverse auctions worked as designed. Prices compressed within narrow bands proof that competition is real, but still rational.

In short: everyone wanted in, but nobody was reckless.

For GUVNL, it’s price insurance not capacity hoarding

Gujarat’s base power remains strong. Its coal and lignite fleet is stable, and renewable additions are consistent.

But winter risk isn’t about base-load — it’s about:

evening peaks,

older thermal units tripping, and

renewable variability.

Short-term procurement gives GUVNL flexibility without long-term cost commitments. Even if the winter tariff looks slightly higher, it’s still cheaper than buying at double-digit exchange rates during scarcity hours.

So this petition isn’t just regulatory paperwork it’s strategic risk management.

Why this matters for the wider sector

Two trends stand out across India’s short-term market:

Winter procurement is now structural. GUVNL has institutionalised the December–March buying cycle setting a model other states are beginning to follow.

Reverse auctions compress margins, not opportunities. Tight competition hasn’t scared off suppliers it’s made the short-term market more disciplined, predictable, and transparent.

The bottom line

Petition No. 2569 of 2025 isn’t just about adopting discovered tariffs. It’s GUVNL’s strategic bet on a volatile winter and an attempt to stay ahead of the market curve.

The crowded bid field shows how valuable the December–March window has become. In Gujarat, winter isn’t just a season anymore it’s a procurement cycle. And GUVNL has chosen to enter early, lock in discipline, and let the reverse auction do the work.

Originally reported and analysed by EnergyLineIndia.com Written by a professional energy-sector journalist.

For more

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.

A crucial judgment for India’s Solar power projects: GERC has ruled that Tata Power Renewable Energy Ltd’s safeguard-duty burden qualifies as a “Change in Law.” The duty’s unexpected extension raised module costs by Rs 88 crore, prompting this regulatory intervention.

GERC confirmed the compensation entitlement, citing CERC and MoP precedents, and directed tariff adjustment as per Article 9 of the PPA. For all Solar power projects, the ruling establishes legal certainty on how fiscal shocks will be offset.

The order also reinforces risk mitigation in competitive bidding frameworks and underpins long-term PPA bankability,,Solar Power Projects, Energyline India, GERC, Tata Power Renewable, Change In Law, Renewable Regulation, Power Sector India, Safeguard Duty.

Read the full verified case note and financial impact analysis on

EnergylineIndia.com — your trusted source for policy and tariff intelligence in Solar power projects.