Liberty to Approach Court Doesn't Override Time Limits: CERC Rejects Extension Plea Citing Delay and Lack of Cause of Action - 2025-04-04

CERC Rejects Solar One Energy 's Plea for Project Timeline Extension, Cites Lack of Maintainability

New Delhi, [Insert Date - Based on Judgement Date: March 30, 2025, so article publication can be on or after this date] - The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has dismissed petitions filed by SolarOne Energy Private Limited seeking extensions of time for achieving financial closure and scheduled commissioning for its 300 MW Gadag and Koppal projects. The bench, comprising Chairperson Shri Jishnu Barua and Members Shri Ramesh Babu V and Shri Harish Dudani, ruled that the petitions were not maintainable, directing the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) to proceed with actions as per previous orders.

Background of the Case

SolarOne Energy had initially secured connectivity for its Gadag and Koppal projects but faced revocation of Letter of Awards (LOAs). Following previous CERC orders, including an order dated April 21, 2024, SolarOne was allowed to retain connectivity by transitioning to a land/bank guarantee route, subject to meeting specific timelines for financial closure and commissioning.

The current petitions (305/MP/2024 and 306/MP/2024) sought to extend these deadlines, arguing delays were due to regulatory processes, CTUIL's inaction, and time spent in prior litigation. SolarOne contended that the initial timelines set by CERC were unrealistic and did not account for project development complexities and regulatory delays. They invoked a liberty granted in a prior CERC order dated May 4, 2024, to approach the commission for further relief if needed.

Arguments Presented

SolarOne Energy argued that the delays were not attributable to them and cited several factors justifying an extension:

Unrealistic Timelines: They claimed the 9-month commissioning deadline was significantly shorter than the industry standard of 24 months for solar projects.

Regulatory Delays: SolarOne stated CTUIL's delayed approval for project configuration changes hindered progress.

"In-Principle" Grantee Status: They argued that until formally recognized as a "Connectivity Grantee" by CTUIL, securing financial closure was practically impossible.

Liberty Granted: They emphasized the liberty granted by CERC in the May 4, 2024 order to seek further relief, interpreting it as permission to seek time extensions.

Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) countered by asserting the petitions were not maintainable on several grounds:

No Cause of Action: CTUIL argued the issues had been conclusively adjudicated in previous orders, including an Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) order dated August 16, 2024, which had already addressed timeline relaxations.

Doctrine of Merger: CTUIL contended that previous CERC orders had merged with the APTEL order, making further modification by CERC impermissible.

Delay in Filing: CTUIL pointed out the petitions were filed after a significant delay beyond the review period without proper justification.

Lack of Progress: CTUIL suggested SolarOne had not demonstrated substantial progress in project implementation despite claiming readiness in earlier proceedings.

CERC's Analysis and Decision

The Commission analyzed the submissions and focused on the maintainability of the petitions. CERC acknowledged granting SolarOne liberty in the May 4, 2024 order to approach them in the future. However, it clarified that this liberty was limited and could not be misconstrued to justify indefinite delays or override established timelines.

The judgment highlighted pivotal excerpts from prior orders to emphasize the context of relaxations granted to SolarOne. It noted that relaxations were initially given based on SolarOne’s claims of project progress and commitment to rapid implementation.

> “ As per the above, the Commission allowed the Petitioner to retain the Connectivity, which was revoked under Regulation 24.6 of the GNA Regulations by the CTUIL, and transit from the LoA route to any other route provided for in Regulation 5.8(xi) of the GNA Regulations. The whole premise based on which Connectivity was allowed to be retained despite the revocation of the LOA/PPA was that the Petitioner had made substantial progress and was serious about implementing the project within a short timeframe. ”

The CERC noted the numerous prior relaxations already granted to SolarOne, observing a pattern of seeking sequential extensions rather than demonstrating project progress.

> “ We note that the Petitioner has been granted relaxations vide Order dated 21.04.2024 to retain the Connectivity, which was subject to it achieving the milestones of submitting land documents, Financial closure, and its commissioning. However, we observe that the Petitioner has been seeking relaxations sequentially, where after securing one relaxation, it is seen to ask for more relaxations in a sequential manner, which is not appropriate. ”

Ultimately, CERC concluded that the current petitions were not maintainable due to the delay, lack of sufficient cause, and the limited scope of the liberty granted in the May 4, 2024 order. The Commission directed CTUIL to proceed with actions as per the original order dated April 21, 2024, effectively denying Solar One's request for timeline extensions.

Implications of the Order

The dismissal of SolarOne's petitions signifies the CERC's firm stance on adherence to project timelines in the power sector. It underscores that liberties granted in regulatory orders are not open-ended invitations for repeated extensions and that project developers must demonstrate timely progress. The decision directs CTUIL to enforce the original timelines, potentially leading to revocation of connectivity and invocation of bank guarantees if SolarOne fails to meet the initially stipulated deadlines. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of meeting regulatory milestones and the limitations of seeking repeated extensions based on general liberties granted in prior orders.