Miscellaneous CERC orders in December 2025

Rajasthan IV 4B Power Transmission Ltd financing approval  
RIV4BPTL sought CERC approval to create a security interest on its transmission assets to secure Rs 4,612.70 crore project financing. This included mortgage, hypothecation, and similar encumbrances in favour of IDBI Trusteeship on behalf of lenders. CERC agreed, noting that such security creation is standard for capital-intensive transmission projects. However, it imposed one key protection. The transmission licence cannot be assigned to lenders or a security trustee without prior CERC consent, even in case of default. Any future assignment will need a joint application by the licensee, lenders, trustee, and nominee, and CERC will check capability and compliance first. The petition and related interlocutory application were disposed with a direction to submit the executed Indenture of Mortgage.

SJVN Transmission Deviation Charges case 
SJVN challenged Transmission Deviation Charges imposed on the Nathpa Jhakri and Rampur hydropower stations for the period 01 November 2020 to 30 September 2023. It also sought refund of Rs 2.08 crore. SJVN argued that injections beyond schedule took place because of primary frequency response, claiming that such injections should not attract deviation charges and that Grid Code obligations should override Sharing Regulations. CERC rejected this position. It held that under Regulation 12(1) of the 2020 Sharing Regulations, any injection beyond entitlement is chargeable, except up to 10 percent overload during peak season for hydro. CERC also found that not all deviations were linked to genuine primary response. Some injections happened even during high frequency and some exceeded the 10 percent margin without approval. Importantly, CERC clarified that exclusion of primary response from such charges came only after 01 October 2023 through the First Amendment, so it does not apply to the disputed period. NLDC has been directed to ensure hydro generators obtain CEA approval before injecting beyond the 10 percent margin.

AGEL and Sarjan Realities connectivity restoration after delay 
Adani Green Energy Ltd and Sarjan Realities Pvt Ltd achieved financial closure for projects but delayed submitting proof to CTUIL by 54 and 56 days. Regulations required submission within 15 days, so CTUIL revoked their 1,050 MW and 1,250 MW connectivity. Both developers approached CERC. CERC agreed that there was a regulatory violation, but it also noted that financial closure had actually been achieved within the main deadline, projects had progressed, and CTUIL confirmed the documents were correct. Exercising relaxation powers, CERC restored connectivity but imposed a penalty equal to 5 percent of Conn-BGs. AGEL has to pay Rs 1.375 crore and SRPL Rs 1.575 crore within 15 days. CTUIL must reinstate connectivity after payment. The money will be used to reduce monthly transmission charges. CERC clarified this is not a precedent.

Allain Duhangan transmission line ISTS tariff order 
This case came back to CERC on remand from APTEL. It relates to the 220 kV, 176.5 km Prini-Nalagarh line developed by Allain Duhangan Hydro Power Ltd and whether it should be part of ISTS and how tariff should be recovered. CERC conducted a fresh cost prudence check as on COD of 16 September 2010. It disallowed costs relating to three Prini switchyard bays, certain land-related claims without adequate proof, and design and engineering cost not supported by the original approved estimate. It fixed provisional capital cost at Rs 29,147.90 lakh against Rs 41,661.35 lakh claimed. CERC declared the asset as ISTS and allowed tariff recovery through PoC charges instead of direct billing to identified beneficiaries. NLDC and CTUIL must adjust past recoveries, handle arrears, and regularise future payments under PoC.

ACME 300 MW solar commissioning delay and connectivity case 
ACME’s 300 MW Rajasthan project missed part of its commissioning deadline, and CTUIL revoked connectivity on 23 April 2025. By 25 June 2025, however, the entire capacity had already achieved COD. ACME sought relief. CERC restored connectivity and granted a 65-day commissioning extension. It noted that connectivity revocation would have wasted available transmission system capacity and that the project was now operational. However, the relief came with compensation. CERC applied a rate of Rs 1,759 per MW per day with 10 percent escalation for April, May, and June 2025, to be computed separately for capacity blocks based on their COD dates. CTUIL must calculate dues, adjust against Rs 9.5 crore already paid, and refund if excess remains. ACME must submit fresh bank guarantees within 15 days. Failure will again lead to automatic revocation. CTUIL must also process ACME’s proposal to add 190 MW solar and 250 MW storage within existing connectivity, subject to compliance.

Deletion of Delhi Discoms in ACME GIB Change in Law case 
This relates to ACME’s larger Change in Law dispute linked to costs of undergrounding 33 kV lines for Great Indian Bustard protection. ACME sought deletion of BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd from the respondent list. CERC noted that the PSAs between SECI and these Delhi Discoms had already been terminated, and the contracted capacity was reallocated to Bihar Discoms with regulatory approval. Since any future liability, if allowed, would fall on Bihar utilities, Delhi Discoms no longer had a real stake in the case. Applying Order I Rule 10 CPC principles and relevant Supreme Court guidance, CERC said BYPL and BRPL were neither necessary nor proper parties. It ordered their deletion. The main petition will continue, and the matter has been listed for further hearing on 12 February 2026.

Kreate Energy trading licence review dismissal
Kreate Energy sought review of CERC’s 05 June 2025 order which issued a show cause notice proposing revocation of its inter-state trading licence due to prolonged payment default to D.B. Power Ltd. CERC first condoned a small delay in filing but dismissed the review. It said there was no error apparent on record. It noted admitted dues of about Rs 11.22 crore, a dishonoured cheque, repeated unfulfilled commitments, and continued non-compliance. KEIPL also argued that a private party cannot initiate Section 19 revocation proceedings. CERC rejected this, stating that facts justified the show cause. It remarked that the review attempt appeared to only delay proceedings. However, CERC granted one final 7-day opportunity to file a reply to the pending show cause notice.

India Power Corporation Ltd vs CTUIL on GNA deferment
IPCL had received 100 MW GNA effective 01 October 2024. It asked CERC to defer the effective date and billing until its dedicated 220 kV Maithon-Chalbalpur line was commissioned. It also sought discounted charges and refund of one-time GNA fees. CERC rejected all claims. It held that regulations do not allow deferment based on delays in a developer’s own dedicated line. The phrase “augmentation” in Regulation 22.4(b) applies only to ISTS elements, not private evacuation lines. The GNA grant itself mentioned “existing ISTS, no augmentation.” CERC also ruled that the discounted Rs 3,000 per MW per month charge applies to Connectivity grantees, not GNA grantees. Since GNA is already effective, one-time GNA charges are not refundable.

ACME Cleantech hydrogen LoA based connectivity rejection case
ACME applied for ISTS connectivity for its 2,182 MW solar project relying on a Letter of Award issued after competitive bidding, but the LoA related to setting up a green hydrogen plant, not power procurement. Under Regulation 5.8(xi)(a), the LoA must arise from tariff-based competitive bidding to buy power from a generating station. CERC agreed with CTUIL that a hydrogen production LoA is not valid proof. ACME requested relaxation of rules or permission to proceed on a lighter bank guarantee route. CERC refused. It held that regulations already provide alternative lawful routes for connectivity, and there were no grounds to dilute the structure. The petition and interim relief were dismissed.

SEIL vs Telangana Discoms execution case
SEIL had earlier won a CERC order directing Telangana Discoms to pay LPS and interest. Execution proceedings were filed due to non-compliance. During the case, the parties settled and Telangana entities paid Rs 23.62 crore LPS principal plus Rs 3.26 crore interest. SEIL confirmed receipt. Since dues were paid, CERC closed the execution petition.

SJVN petition on allocation of remaining 316 MW Greenshoe capacity dismissed
SJVN sought allocation of the unutilised 316 MW under the Greenshoe option of its 1,500 MW dispatchable renewable tender, arguing that the capacity should be proportionately distributed to existing bidders. CERC held that the Greenshoe allocation process was already completed as per the RfS and 2023 Guidelines and could not be reopened. Referring to limits on its powers in competitive bidding matters, the Commission said Section 79 cannot alter a concluded framework. It found no tariff issue involved and dismissed the petition.

Avikiran Solar LTA commencement and transmission charges case
Avikiran Solar asked CERC to align its LTA start date with its revised Scheduled Commissioning Date and sought waiver of transmission charges for the intervening period. The LTA became effective on 09 May 2021, while commissioning was delayed. CERC held that LTA and PPA timelines are independent, the LTA date cannot be retrospectively changed, and charges are payable from LTA operationalisation until COD. The Ministry of Power waiver applies only after COD. The petition was dismissed.

Sikkim Power Transmission Ltd permanent transmission stores petition admitted
Sikkim Power Transmission Ltd sought approval to set up permanent transmission stores for the 400 kV Teesta-III–Kishanganj line and to treat the related expenditure as Additional Capital Expenditure. It cited the line’s criticality, difficult terrain, and the need for reliable restoration capability. Estimated cost is Rs 1,100 lakh. CERC held the petition maintainable, affirmed jurisdiction over ISTS tariff matters, and found adequate cause of action. Notices have been issued, and the case will be heard on merits.

TPSL vs KSEBL Change in Law compensation case
T.P. Saurya Ltd sought recognition of increased Basic Customs Duty on modules and GST revision as Change in Law under its 110 MW PPA with KSEBL. CERC upheld its jurisdiction, holding the arrangement inter-state. It ruled both BCD and GST changes qualify as Change in Law since they occurred after bid submission and impacted project cost. Compensation will be paid as a 15-year annuity at 9.12 percent with carrying cost, subject to reconciliation. Enforcement of post-COD compensation and carrying cost remains stayed as per Supreme Court directions.

Updated on January 4, 2026 to include additional CERC orders issued in December 2025.

The featured photograph is for representation only.