The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) is currently reviewing four separate petitions from solar project developers who are requesting extensions for the commissioning of evacuation lines and metering systems for their respective ground-mounted solar power plants. All the petitioners claim that the delays they have experienced were due to circumstances beyond their control, and they are seeking relief from the Commission. The projects, with capacities ranging from 0.9 MW AC to 2.48 MW AC, are all located in Gujarat and are part of the state’s broader push towards solar power adoption.
In the first case, Pratistha Prints, the petitioner behind a 0.9 MW AC capacity solar project, approached the Commission seeking a time extension. The petitioner stated that the project has been delayed due to right-of-way issues, unexpected heavy rainfall, and flooding. In addition, the petitioner pointed to regulatory changes in banking rules and a hike in solar module prices as key contributing factors to the delay. According to Pratistha Prints, these challenges were outside of their control, and they are requesting that the Commission consider these factors when assessing their request. The Commission has directed the petitioner to provide supporting documents detailing the causes of the delay. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd. (GETCO) and Dakshin Gujarat Vij Company Limited (DGVCL) have been named as respondents in the case. The next hearing has been scheduled for May 2, 2025.
In a similar petition, Pragati Fashions has requested an extension for their 1.80 MW AC solar power plant project. Like the previous petitioner, Pragati Fashions cited multiple reasons for the delay. These included right-of-way clearance issues, severe weather conditions such as heavy rain and flooding, complications related to Guaranteed Technical Particulars (GTP) approval, changes in banking policies, and a sharp increase in the cost of solar modules. The petitioner argued that these conditions severely hindered project implementation. The GERC has asked Pragati Fashions to submit evidence supporting their claims. GETCO and DGVCL are again the named respondents, and the next hearing for this matter is also scheduled for May 2, 2025.
The third petition was filed by ARMO Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. for their 2.41 MW AC ground-mounted solar project. The company is seeking an extension of the deadline for the transmission line and metering system, citing delays similar to those faced by the other petitioners. These include problems in obtaining right-of-way clearance, extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall and flooding, new banking regulations, and issues with GTP approvals. Additionally, ARMO Synthetics has requested the Commission to put a hold on the encashment of their bank guarantee, arguing that the delays were not due to negligence or inaction on their part. The Commission has instructed ARMO Synthetics to submit all relevant documents that explain the reasons for the delay. GETCO, GEDA (Gujarat Energy Development Agency), GUVNL (Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited), and DGVCL are listed as respondents. The next hearing is scheduled for May 2, 2025.
The fourth petition involves Ruchi Twisters Private Limited, which is developing a 2.48 MW AC solar project. This petitioner has also requested additional time to complete the commissioning of the evacuation line and metering system. Ruchi Twisters has attributed the delay to several factors including right-of-way clearance problems, intense rainfall and flooding, banking policy changes, and delays in securing GTP approvals. Like ARMO Synthetics, Ruchi Twisters has also asked the Commission to prevent the encashment of their bank guarantee. The Commission has asked them to provide detailed documents explaining the situation. GETCO, GEDA, GUVNL, and DGVCL are listed as parties in the case. The next hearing is set for May 1, 2025.
All four cases indicate common challenges faced by solar project developers in Gujarat, especially regarding weather conditions, regulatory changes, and administrative approvals. The outcomes of these cases could influence how future delays are treated in the renewable energy sector.
