The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has dismissed a petition filed by ReNew Surya Vihaan (RSVPL) seeking the return of the Construction Bank Guarantee (CBG) submitted for a 100 MW solar project in Rajasthan.

The Commission held that RSVPL’s request to adjust the bank guarantee requirements lacked merit as it had explicitly confirmed its consent to the transition from Connectivity Regulations, 2009 to General Network Access (GNA) Regulations, 2022.

Background

ReNew Surya Vihaan was awarded a 100 MW solar project in Rajasthan through a competitive bidding process conducted by SECI. RSVPL applied for long-term access to the interstate transmission system to facilitate power evacuation from the project. Under the Connectivity Regulations, 2009, the company was required to submit a CBG of ₹50 million (~$576,234), calculated at ₹500,000 (~$5,762)/MW. This bank guarantee was a standard requirement for developers seeking transmission access under the regulatory framework in force at the time.

With the introduction of the GNA Regulations 2022, the regulatory structure for transmission access underwent significant changes. RSVPL transitioned to the new framework, following which its previously submitted CBG was reclassified. According to Regulation 37.3(3)(d) of the GNA Regulations, 2022, the ₹50 million (~$576,234) CBG furnished under the earlier regulations was converted into Conn-BG1 of ₹5 million (~$57,619) and Conn-BG2 of ₹45 million (~$518,540).

RSVPL contested this classification, arguing that its financial obligations under the new regulatory framework were substantially higher than those imposed on new applicants under the GNA Regulations. The petitioner asserted that a fresh applicant seeking connectivity under the 2022 regulations would only be required to furnish Conn-BG1 of ₹5 million (~$57,619) and Conn-BG3 at ₹200,000 (~$2,304)/MW, totaling ₹25 million (~$288,078) for a 100 MW project. RSVPL contended that it was being unfairly burdened with an excessive financial requirement due to its prior compliance with the 2009 regulations.

In its arguments before the Commission, RSVPL claimed that the existing framework resulted in discriminatory treatment of transitioning entities. It emphasized that it was being penalized because it had already furnished a higher bank guarantee under the previous regulations. It requested that the Commission exercise its discretionary power under Regulation 42 of the GNA Regulations, 2022, to rectify this disparity by allowing the return of its ₹50 million (~$576,234) CBG and permitting it to furnish the bank guarantees required under the new framework, namely Conn-BG1 of ₹5 million (~$57,619) and Conn-BG3 of ₹200,000 (~$2,304)/MW.

Central Transmission Utility of India (CTUIL), the primary respondent in the case, opposed RSVPL’s request and argued that the transition provisions under the GNA Regulations were explicit and uniformly applicable to all entities. The respondent maintained that RSVPL had voluntarily transitioned to the new regulatory framework and was bound by its provisions.

CTUIL argued that RSVPL’s comparison with fresh applicants was flawed. While new applicants might have different bank guarantee requirements, they could also be required to provide additional guarantees, such as Conn-BG2, depending on the associated transmission system costs. Therefore, the claim that RSVPL was being unfairly burdened was not substantiated by a direct comparison with new applicants.

Commission’s Analysis

The Commission noted that RSVPL had voluntarily transitioned to the new regulatory framework and had explicitly confirmed its consent through official correspondence dated May 1, 2023. By doing so, RSVPL had accepted the regulatory terms governing the treatment of its bank guarantee.

The Commission found that RSVPL’s argument comparing itself to fresh applicants under the 2022 regulations lacked merit. The treatment of bank guarantees for transitioning entities had been clearly defined in the regulations, and RSVPL’s claim that it was being unfairly burdened was based on an incomplete understanding of how new applicants might also be subject to additional financial requirements.

The Commission also addressed RSVPL’s request to invoke Regulation 42 of the GNA Regulations, 2022, which grants the Commission discretionary power to remove difficulties in implementing the regulations. It determined that no regulatory difficulty warranted intervention. The provisions of the GNA Regulations were clear, and RSVPL’s situation did not constitute an exceptional case requiring special relief.

Based on this analysis, the Commission ruled against RSVPL’s petition. The request to return the ₹50 million (~$576,234) CBG and substitute it with Conn-BG1 of ₹5 million (~$57,619) and Conn-BG3 of ₹200,000 (~$2,304)/MW was denied.

The Commission concluded that the treatment of RSVPL’s bank guarantee was under the established regulatory provisions and that there was no basis to alter the financial obligations imposed on the petitioner.

The Commission recently issued the draft (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) (Fourth Amendment) Regulations, 2025, introducing key changes to connectivity and network access regulations.

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