The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) has rejected a petition by a solar power developer seeking to extend the commissioning deadline for its 3.94 MW ground-mounted systems.

The solar developer, Saanika Polytex, had received a show-cause notice from Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company (DGVCL) for a delay in the project’s commissioning, after which it contended that the delay had been beyond its control.

The Commission found no merit in its arguments and rejected its request.

Background

Saanika Polytex, was developing a 3.948 MW ground-mounted solar project under the captive use/open access categories.

It applied for a provisional Gujarat Energy Development Agency approval, which was granted by Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam. It also received approval for grid connectivity and technical feasibility from the Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation (GETCO).

The petitioner began the land acquisition process after receiving the technical feasibility report. After facing some issues, the targeted project land was changed to a parcel in Selod village, delaying the purchase and the project’s completion.

The petitioner claimed the new landowner’s application to the revenue authorities for use for non-agricultural purposes was rejected based on the Department of Land Records’ objections regarding the division of this parcel due to a canal passing through it.

The landowner received the approval later after addressing the objections raised.

The petitioner added that it faced a reassessment of solar project capacity due to revised banking regulations, resulting in financial hardships and further delaying the project.

Saanika Polytex initiated the process to obtain no-objection certificates from various authorities for laying the underground transmission line. The petitioner claimed that these approvals also took substantial time, and some remained in process.

The company also stated that the project’s commissioning was further delayed by the monsoon and additional time for receiving the bank loan for completing it.

According to GERC’s tariff order, the transmission line/evacuation system must be completed within one year of receiving the technical feasibility report, and at least 10% of the project capacity must be commissioned within one month of charging for the evacuation. The remaining capacity must be completed within one year from the evacuation line’s charging. The petitioner’s project had been delayed beyond the permitted time.

Following the delay, DGVCL issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner. Saanika Polytex replied that it could complete the entire project within six months.

After receiving no response, the petitioner approached the Commission to direct GETCO to grant a six-month extension to complete the project.

Saanika Polytex also contended that it had completed another project with a similar capacity of 3.98 MW on time, displaying its intent and capability to do so. It also submitted a fresh bank guarantee of ₹1.97 million (~$22,335.17) to DGVCL as a show of good faith and readiness to finish the project.

DGVCL argued that the tariff order lacks a force majeure clause; a contract must provide any such relief, and none exists in this case. It added that the petitioner never approached DGVCL to pay supervision charges for the dedicated evacuation line.

Additionally, DGVCL stated that the banking regulations were clarifications and not policy revisions. The petitioner did not provide any specifications regarding when it paused project activities, when it restarted them, or how banking affected the project’s capacity.

DGVCL added that the petitioner registered two projects: one with a capacity of 4.0 MW and the other with a capacity of 3.948 MW. However, it submitted only a single bank guarantee of ₹2 million (~$22,675.3). After the bank guarantee was mistakenly released for the uncommissioned project, DGVCL informed the petitioner that a valid guarantee of ₹3.94 million (~$44,761.04) must be submitted for it.

Commission’s Analysis

The Commission noted the required time to complete the projects under the Gujarat Renewable Energy Policy 2023 and the tariff order.

It observed that the petitioner did not approach DGVCL to commence the project’s dedicated line work or pay the necessary supervision charges. This demonstrated that the petitioner was not ready to complete the evacuation infrastructure.

GERC stated that the petitioner did not provide substantial documentary evidence to show that the no-objection certificates had delayed the project. It also emphasized that the bank guarantee must be valid.

Citing these reasons, the Commission rejected the petition, finding no merit in Saanika Polytex’s request for an extension of the project commissioning deadline.

In September this year, GERC granted a 361-day extension to a wind energy developer to complete the power evacuation infrastructure for its 70 MW wind-solar hybrid power project.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.