SECI Announces Winners of 6 GWh Peak Power Supply Auction

IREDA’s Q1 Revenue Up 15% on Higher Loan Interest Accruals

ABRen Secures $1.6 Billion from MUFG to Fund Sprng Energy Acquisition

Coal India Seeks ₹7 Billion Term Loan for 750 MWh Battery Storage Project

GMIDC Tenders 150 MW Floating Solar Plus 150 MWh Battery Storage Project

GAIL Invites Bids to Augment 5 MW Solar Project in Rajasthan

PFC Consulting Awards Project to Evacuate 14 GW of Renewables in Gujarat

PFC Consulting Tenders Transmission Project for 400 kV Substation in Rajasthan

Grid India Issues New Procedure for Secure Operation of National Grid

Madhya Pradesh Lays Out Banking SOP for Green Energy Open Access Consumers

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/amazon_polly_103469.mp3?version=1787380788">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>The government recently told Parliament that over 5,400 power sector cases are pending before electricity sector regulators and the courts.
Cases involving the Ministry of Power (<a href="https://www.powermin.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MoP</a>) numbered 1,303, while 2,911 and 1,193 petitions are pending before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (<a href="https://aptel.gov.in/en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">APTEL</a>) and the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (<a href="https://cercind.gov.in/index-en.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CERC</a>), respectively, bringing the total to 5,407, as of June 30, 2026. Two legal experts Mercom India spoke with attributed the pendency to limited bench strengths and vacancies at State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs), repeated litigation over similar issues, regulatory changes, and the absence of mechanisms to collectively resolve standardized claims.
Shri Venkatesh, Founding Partner at <a href="https://skvlawoffices.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SKV Law Offices</a>, said the actual number of pending cases nationwide was several times higher. “The 5,407 cases exclude every SERC docket across 28 states, every state-level tariff, open access and consumer petition, and every High Court writ not involving the MoP.”
Vacancies, Limited Bench Strength
Divya Chaturvedi, Partner at <a href="https://www.khaitanco.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Khaitan &amp; Co</a>., said the vacancies and weak bench strength were among the most immediate constraints. APTEL’s structure requires both judicial and technical expertise, making vacancies particularly disruptive. APTEL currently has two Technical Members and one Judicial Member, while the Chairperson’s position remains unfilled.
“This effectively limits the Tribunal to one functioning bench at a time,” she said.
Vacancies at SERCs only compound the problem. Without a quorum or legal member, matters can stall at the first instance even before reaching the appellate stage.
All three posts at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission recently became vacant following the Chairperson’s resignation in June 2026. The Chairperson and Judicial Member positions at the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission are also vacant, with the regulator functioning with two temporary members.
Venkatesh agreed that though judicial strength was a problem,  increasing sanctioned strength alone would not resolve the backlog, as appointments can take months or years.
Repetitive Nature of Cases
Repeated litigation over similar disputes is another major source of congestion.
Venkatesh said appeals against tariff orders across states and control periods often raise recurring questions, while change-in-law claims arising from a single statutory event can be nearly identical across dozens of projects.
Both experts highlighted how common events such as changes in the Goods and Services Tax regime, Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (ALMM) restrictions, force majeure, and other change-in-law events can generate numerous similar petitions.
A single policy event can affect an entire developer portfolio, yet each special purpose vehicle may have to establish its claim separately. “This duplicates effort and risks inconsistent outcomes,” Chaturvedi said.
She added that tariff, connectivity, and change-in-law orders can affect generators, licensees, procurers, consumers, and lenders. This can lead to intervention applications, cross-appeals, reviews, and implementation disputes involving stakeholders who were not parties to the original proceeding.
Procedural matters also consume APTEL’s time. Chaturvedi said issuing notices and completing pleadings take up significant bench time.
Although the Electricity Act provides for APTEL to endeavor to dispose of appeals within 180 days, the timeline is not enforceable.
Venkatesh said statutory timelines should have consequences for the party benefiting from delay. If a change-in-law or payment matter remains undecided after 180 days, he suggested making the undisputed amount provisionally payable with interest, subject to final adjustment.
Strict timelines could be applied to admitted liability claims, late-payment surcharge cases, connectivity and General Network Access (GNA), and curtailment compensation.
Renewables Add New Disputes
The rapid <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/renewable-energy-capacity-in-indias-power-mix-reaches-48-3-in-q2-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">expansion</a> of renewable energy is creating new categories of disputes as regulation evolves alongside technologies and project development.
GNA, deviation settlement, transmission charges, curtailment, storage, hybrid projects, land acquisition, scheduled commissioning dates, and ALMM requirements are among the areas generating new questions.
Chaturvedi said renewable energy projects have greater “interface risk.” Projects may require land aggregation, renewable energy park permissions, GNA approvals, transmission readiness, forecasting and scheduling compliance, open access approvals, storage integration, and central or state offtake arrangements.
Shorter development schedules also make delays in connectivity, transmission, or land availability more consequential for renewable projects.
Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) could add another layer, Chaturvedi said. Standalone BESS is treated as a delicensed activity, while co-located storage can be considered part of generation, distribution, or consumer assets depending on its configuration. Scheduling, deviation settlement, augmentation, degradation, and transmission charge waivers could emerge as areas of dispute.
In January 2025, CERC <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/cerc-rejects-tariff-for-secis-1000-mwh-bess-project" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allowed</a> the cancellation of Solar Energy Corporation of India’s 500 MW/1,000 MWh standalone BESS tender after prolonged delay in signing project agreements, a dispute about contracting and execution timelines rather than generation performance.
Venkatesh, however, said renewables are not necessarily more exposed to prolonged litigation than conventional generation. Thermal generators have faced disputes over imported coal, change-in-law, tariff recovery, and carrying costs for considerably longer.
Renewable disputes are more visible because the sector is expanding rapidly and the issues are newer, he said. “In terms of duration and value, thermal remains the heavier burden.”
Delays Raise Project Costs
Long-drawn regulatory disputes can affect project execution and financing.
Venkatesh said unresolved connectivity, transmission access, right-of-way, or land disputes can prevent developers from confidently sequencing construction. Delays can subsequently trigger disputes over scheduled commissioning dates, liquidated damages, performance bank guarantees, and time extensions.
“A single unresolved upstream matter can therefore generate a downstream one,” he said.
If connectivity, transmission bays, GNA commencement, or storage-charging rights remain disputed, even completed projects can end up commercially stranded.
Such delays increase interest during construction, working capital requirements, and carrying costs while postponing revenue and compensation.
Venkatesh said change-in-law recovery can take several years, while the carrying-cost component can itself become subject to litigation.
Chaturvedi noted that prolonged uncertainty also affects investment decisions. Developers may add price litigation risk in bids, while lenders demand higher contingencies and equity investors seek higher returns, potentially increasing tariffs or reducing competition.
“Each month of delay adds debt service and ties up working capital. The effect is sharper for competitively bid RE projects, whose tariffs leave little room for unplanned finance costs,” she said.
Reforming Dispute Resolution
The experts called for a combination of higher institutional capacity and measures to prevent repetitive disputes from entering the system.
Chaturvedi suggested beginning appointment processes six to nine months before expected vacancies. She proposed permanent regional or circuit benches in Bengaluru, Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, and Kolkata to lower access costs and align adjudicatory capacity with the geographical distribution of projects and disputes.
Common cases could also be clubbed. When multiple proceedings arise from the same notification, regulation, tender clause, or policy event, a lead case could decide the common legal question, leaving project-specific issues for separate determination.
Venkatesh proposed a formulaic and self-executing mechanism for change-in-law claims, with defined events and indices, computation by a nodal agency, and settlement within 60 days. Appeals could then be largely limited to disputes over quantum.
He also suggested a stronger costs regime and greater precedential discipline to prevent issues already settled by APTEL from being repeatedly litigated before SERCs.
Chaturvedi said pre-litigation mechanisms and arbitration could divert suitable contractual disputes away from regulatory forums. Tariff-affecting regulatory disputes could remain with the commissions, while bilateral contractual matters could be resolved through expedited arbitration.
The proposed reforms suggest that increasing bench strength can ease the immediate backlog, but reducing litigation over the longer term will require addressing repetitive disputes, vacancies, procedural delays, and regulatory uncertainty at their source.
Subscribe to Mercom’s <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/product/q2-2026-renewable-energy-policy-impact?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Q2 2026 Renewable Energy Policy Impact Report</a> for insights into key policy developments shaping India’s renewable energy sector.
Track the latest clean energy developments and market trends with <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/research/mercom-view" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MERCOM View</a>.

Over 5,400 Power Sector Cases Pending, Delaying Projects and Raising Costs

In its latest order, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has provided relief to a small hydropower developer by overlooking procedural delays allowing the issuance of renewable energy certificates (RECs) that it had sought.
The petition was filed by Bhilangana Hydro Power Limited (BHPL), a generating company that operates a 24 MW small hydro project located in the Garhwal district of Uttarakhand. The petition was filed against the NLDC and Uttarakhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (<a href="http://ureda.uk.gov.in/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">UREDA</a>).
The petition was filed for the issuance of RECs from the date of commissioning of the 24 MW hydro project. The project was commissioned on December 20, 2011.
Background:
The BHPL has asked the national load dispatch centre (NLDC) to issue the RECs for the 24 MW project from the date of commissioning until the date of registration – February 28, 2012.
BHPL submitted in its petition that its project was ready for commissioning as early as July 2011. However, the commissioning of the project was delayed substantially on account of the delay in the construction of power evacuation facilities by the transmission licensee in Uttarakhand.
Meanwhile, UREDA granted accreditation to the project on February 8, 2012, after a delay of over 11 months from the date of applying. The NLDC registered the project on February 28, 2012, after considering the recommendations of the UREDA.
Later, BHPL filed a petition before the Uttarakhand Electricity Regulatory Commission (UERC) for the resolution of the issues arising due to the delay in the accreditation of the project by UREDA and requested that the project be made eligible for accreditation and issuance of RECs from the date of commissioning of the project.
Apart from directing UREDA for taking necessary action for the grant of accreditation from the date of commissioning of the project, the UERC had also directed both the SLDC and NLDC to take on record the revised date of accreditation and to take necessary action to ensure that RECs are issued from December 20, 2011.
However, according to BHPL, the NLDC failed to issue the RECs for the project to the tune of  11,195.
After hearing both sides of the story, the commission noted, “Had the state agency issued the accreditation in time and enabled the petitioner to apply for registration to NLDC, its project could have been registered before the date of commissioning on 20.11.2011, and the petitioner would have been eligible for grant of RECs from that date.”
Considering this, the commission ordered that the promotional provisions of the REC regulations should not be denied to the petitioner on procedural grounds.  The commission has therefore directed the NLDC to treat the project as being registered on December 20, 2011, and grant the RECs for the period as requested.
In August 2019, <a href="https://mercomindia.com/cerc-grants-rec-uttar-pradesh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mercom</a> reported that CERC directed the NLDC and Uttar Pradesh New and Renewable Energy Development Agency (UPNEDA) to issue the RECs to Rana Sagars, the petitioner, for a period from March 2016 to April 2017. In this case, as well, the commission observed that the RECs were denied on account of procedural and technical issues on which the respondent has no power or authority and that only the Commission could permit it.
In May 2019, <a href="https://mercomindia.com/cerc-extends-validity-of-recs-april-october-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mercom</a> reported that the CERC had issued an order extending the validity of RECs which were due to expire between April 1, 2019, and October 31, 2019, thus giving much relief to renewable energy generators of both solar and non-solar projects which are a part of the REC mechanism.
In October’s REC trading session, there was an increase in the number of solar and non-solar RECs that were traded compared with the trading activity recorded in September. The RECs were traded at ₹2,400 (~$33.9)/REC, which is a record high price on both the trading platforms. The prices have been shooting up in recent months owing to the supply crunch.

CERC Directs NLDC to Issue RECs to a 24 MW Hydro Project Overlooking Procedural Delay

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (<a href="http://www.meti.go.jp/english/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">METI</a>) has proposed that companies granted permits for solar projects between the fiscal years of 2012 to 2014 under Feed-In-Tariffs (FiT) should submit applications by March 2019 to connect to the grid.
According to Reuters, the Japanese government has said that those companies who miss the deadline will see their price guarantees cut from 32-40 yen ($0.28 &#8211; $0.36)/kWh to 21 yen (~$0.19)/kWh.
This decision comes considering the fact that approximately 23 percent of the total capacity approved in fiscal year 2012, 49 percent approved in 2013, and 59 percent approved in 2014 are not operational currently. The country is reeling under a huge public burden of FiT subsidies and government wants to reduce it.
Japan had introduced the FiT in the wake of Fukushima disaster to spur solar developments. Its FiT levels are among the highest in the world.
METI estimates that subsidy cut could affect 23.5 GW of solar capacity, which is 44 percent of the amount the government approved in the three-year period after the FiT scheme was created in 2012. Japan’s total installed power capacity is around 250 GW, with 44 GW coming from solar.
“Litigation will inevitably ensue from Japan and abroad, and it will be difficult to convince the public that there is no risk of the government losing when the proposed changes so blatantly disregard the foundations of the FiT scheme,” said a note from law firm Orrick.
Stakeholders of the solar industry are miffed with the proposal and threatening legal actions against the government for breaching the earlier contracts.
A group of business lobbying groups in Japan from the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Canada released a statement saying, “The suddenness of the proposal, its almost immediate implementation, and ambiguity around implementation could put future and existing investments at risk.”
Other countries are also facing subsidy related issues. <a href="https://mercomindia.com/chinas-solar-subsidy-backlog-approximately-17-4-billion/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Recently</a>, Mercom reported that many solar power projects in Ningxia, in the northwestern region of China, are finding it difficult to stay afloat and may face bankruptcy due to the delay in subsidy payment.
<a href="https://mercomindia.com/major-policy-change-china-affect-global-solar/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Earlier this</a> year, China had specified that a cap of 10 GW would be imposed on distributed generation (DG) projects for the year 2018. This was done to reduce the subsidy burden and propel the sector towards being more efficient. China also intends to bring down renewable energy costs to a level where it can compete with coal power in a subsidy-free regime.
Subsidy-related issues are not exclusive to China and Japan. Mercom has <a href="https://mercomindia.com/rooftop-subsidy-delays-india/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> previously that subsidy disbursement delays are hampering the growth of residential rooftop solar in India and many of the rooftop solar developers in the Indian market do not want to take on subsidy projects.
Image credit: Greenko

Japan’s Proposal to Rollback Solar Subsidy Angers Investors and Operators

litigation

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS