CERC Restores Grid Connectivity for Serentica, ReNew Renewable Projects with Penalties

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has set aside the revocation of grid connectivity for renewable energy projects developed by Serentica Renewables India 4 Pvt. Ltd., ReNew Green (MHP One) Pvt. Ltd., and ReNew Green Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd., while directing the developers to pay financial compensation for delays in commissioning their projects.

The dispute arose after the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) revoked the developers’ grid connectivity on the grounds that their projects had not been commissioned within the timelines prescribed under the General Network Access (GNA) Regulations.

Developers Challenge Revocation

The renewable developers approached CERC arguing that the revocation of connectivity was unjustified, citing regulatory interpretation issues and several unforeseen challenges that delayed project execution.

They contended that Regulation 24.6 of the GNA Regulations—which allows revocation of connectivity for delays in commissioning—should not apply to them as they were “transitioned entities” from the earlier connectivity regime introduced in 2009 rather than new applicants under the current framework.

According to the petitioners, even if the regulation were applicable, the six-month timeline for revocation should be calculated from the new connectivity start date granted during the transition process, rather than from the original scheduled date of commercial operation (SCOD).

The developers also cited multiple uncontrollable factors that affected project construction. These included unprecedented rainfall that disrupted construction activities for more than 100 workdays in some locations, as well as Right of Way (RoW) issues, including farmer protests and political interventions.

Serentica also highlighted delays in approvals from the Maharashtra Energy Development Agency (MEDA) for micro-siting wind turbines, while ReNew pointed to delays in securing clearances from the Ministry of Defence.

The companies further argued that their projects were already in advanced stages of development, having invested substantial capital and installed multiple wind turbine generators. Serentica stated it had invested around Rs 1,187 crore, while ReNew’s investment in the projects stood at approximately Rs 2,681 crore.

CTUIL Defends Revocation

CTUIL maintained that the revocation of connectivity was carried out strictly in accordance with the regulatory framework.

The transmission utility argued that once the developers transitioned into the GNA regime, they became “deemed applicants” and were therefore bound by the provisions of the regulations, including the clause allowing revocation if projects failed to meet their original SCOD.

CTUIL also stated that the final grant of connectivity did not alter the projects’ original commissioning timelines. Since the developers did not commission the projects within six months of that deadline, the utility said it was obligated under the rules to revoke their connectivity.

The agency also emphasized that as the nodal body responsible for granting connectivity, it did not have the authority to relax regulatory provisions, a power that lies only with CERC.

CERC’s Ruling

After reviewing the petitions, CERC ruled that Regulation 24.6 does apply to transitioned entities, rejecting the developers’ argument that they were exempt from the provision.

However, the Commission identified a regulatory gap in the transition process. While the transition applications allowed developers to specify a new start date for connectivity, they did not explicitly provide for a revised SCOD.

To ensure that the transition framework remained meaningful, CERC ruled that in such cases the SCOD should be considered equivalent to the new connectivity start date granted during the transition process.

The Commission also noted that the projects were already in advanced stages of development, with substantial investments made and several wind turbines erected. Revoking connectivity at such a stage, it observed, could undermine sectoral interests and leave valuable transmission infrastructure underutilized.

Conditional Relief with Penalties

Invoking its regulatory powers under Regulation 41 (Power to Relax) and Regulation 42 (Power to Remove Difficulty) of the GNA Regulations, CERC set aside CTUIL’s revocation notices and allowed the developers to retain their grid connectivity.

However, the relief was granted with strict conditions. The Commission directed the petitioners to pay compensation linked to delays, beginning with charges equivalent to 50 percent of the bank guarantees for the first three months of delay, with escalating daily penalties thereafter.

CERC also capped the permissible delay at 15 months, warning that if the projects are not commissioned within that timeframe, the connectivity will be permanently revoked.

The order aims to balance regulatory enforcement with the need to safeguard large renewable energy investments and ensure optimal utilization of transmission infrastructure.