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

<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/2026/07/amazon_polly_101958.mp3?version=1785301671">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>Stricter regulations and project oversight can discourage speculative developers, but they may also inadvertently affect genuine developers facing legitimate execution challenges that delay project timelines.
According to Shri Venkatesh, Founding Partner at <a href="https://skvlawoffices.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SKV Law Offices</a>, India’s electricity regulations must strike a balance between stronger oversight and adequate flexibility for private developers.
During an interview on the sidelines of the <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/event/mercom-india-renewables-summit-2026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Mercom India Renewables Summit 2026</a>, held in New Delhi on July 1 and 2, Venkatesh discusses central and state electricity policies, amendments to the General Network Access regulations, transmission infrastructure delays, and reforms needed to improve policy implementation.
The following are edited excerpts from the interview.
The industry often points to a mismatch between central and state electricity policies. Central policies are generally considered as guidance rather than as binding requirements for states. How would you explain this from a legal perspective?
Electricity is a concurrent subject, which allows both the central and state governments to frame laws. Before the Electricity Act, 2003, several state governments had their own electricity laws in addition to the central legislation that existed at the time.
As India has a federal structure and electricity is a concurrent subject, central government policies serve as guidance for state electricity regulatory commissions but are not binding on them. A state commission therefore has the flexibility to take a different approach to implementing a policy.
For example, General Network Access at the central level combines connectivity and access. However, this approach has not been adopted uniformly across states, where developers may still have to apply separately for connectivity and access.
States have the autonomy to make their own decisions. While they generally align with central policies, they are not legally bound by the directions or mandate of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission.
As new regulations are introduced, where must regulators strike a balance between strengthening oversight and avoiding excessive restrictions?
The recent amendments to the General Network Access regulations have addressed oversight in project implementation in detail. The objective is to prevent speculative entities from blocking connectivity and ensure genuine developers receive timely access. That is a valid objective.
However, the regulations now examine almost every stage of project execution, which was not the case earlier. Regulators must give private power generating companies sufficient flexibility to implement projects according to their own schedules and commercial considerations.
For example, under the General Network Access framework, developers must submit project finance documents within six months. The nature of project financing, whether through equity, a letter of credit, or foreign debt, falls within the commercial domain of the private developer.  It should not be regulated minutely by the regulations.
A balance is required between preventing speculative developers and allowing genuine developers sufficient flexibility to execute projects.
Renewable energy projects in Rajasthan and Gujarat have faced curtailment and evacuation constraints. What legal remedies are available when such delays reduce a project’s internal rate of return?
Several of these matters are currently sub judice, and I represent developers in some of them. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment on the specific cases. However, there is a broader gap in the existing legal framework.
The law has traditionally focused on ensuring that power generating projects are completed by the time transmission infrastructure becomes available. Earlier, the common problem was that the transmission lines would be ready, but power generation would be delayed.
Today, the situation has reversed. Renewable energy projects have shorter construction timelines and may be ready before the associated transmission infrastructure. Transmission licensees can face delays because of right-of-way and execution issues.
The law has not fully evolved to address this situation. It provides for compensation to a transmission licensee when a generator is delayed, but it does not clearly address compensation for a generator when the transmission licensee is delayed.
Developers can approach the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and establish that they invested on the understanding that their projects would begin operations on a particular date. If the project is ready but evacuation infrastructure is unavailable, the developer can seek compensation for the resulting underutilization of the investment and the reduction in the project&#8217;s internal rate of return.
Which electricity sector policy reform should receive the highest priority?
The appellate tribunal must be strengthened, and the legal framework must address infrastructure delays more effectively.
A broader reform would be to move electricity from the Concurrent List to the Union List. India’s electricity sector increasingly operates on a national basis. The grid is national, generation is centrally coordinated, and major policies are framed at the central level.
Bringing electricity under the Union List could improve policy implementation and help resolve issues affecting projects across states more quickly.

Electricity Regulations Must Balance Accountability with Developer Flexibility: Interview

<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/2025/08/amazon_polly_83050.mp3?version=1755069792">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>In an interview on the sidelines of the Mercom India Renewables Summit 2025, Shri Venkatesh, Founding Partner at <a href="https://skvlawoffices.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SKV Law Offices</a>, shared key insights into the evolving regulatory and legal challenges in India&#8217;s clean energy sector.
He drew attention to the growing backlog of legal cases resulting from increased market participation, outdated legal frameworks, and inadequate adjudication mechanisms. Venkatesh believes that India needed to transition from merely having policy intent to implementing it at the state level and regulating it promptly to achieve its clean energy goals.
Energy and Infrastructure is one of SKV Law&#8217;s key practice areas. How does SKV help renewable energy companies navigate India&#8217;s complex regulatory and legal landscape?
We are a firm specializing in infrastructure law, providing legal value at every stage of a renewable energy project. From the bidding stage to execution and eventual operation, we are involved throughout the process. For example, right-of-way (RoW) issues have become so common that they now require dedicated legal attention. Once a project is operational, disputes often arise with DISCOMs or with commercial and industrial consumers.
Our role spans from drafting and advising on transactions to strategic consultation and representation in disputes. Essentially, we&#8217;re involved in the project from initiation to the point where power reaches the end consumer.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Interview with Shri Venkatesh, Founding Partner at SKV Law Offices" src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/1109255161?h=9ef1695cba&amp;badge=0&amp;autopause=0&amp;player_id=0&amp;app_id=58479" width="100%" height="500" frameborder="0">﻿﻿</iframe>
ROW issues are a recurring problem in India. What are the key challenges developers face?
The primary issue is compensation. If you own a piece of land and someone installs a 220 kV or 66 kV transmission line across it, it can have a significant impact on your property and livelihood. In states like Tamil Nadu or Karnataka, these disputes often reach the High Court, which adds legal complexity. Legal teams must explain the framework, such as how developers operate under the Telegraph Act, to justify project execution.
What are the key regulatory risks renewable energy companies face today?
Historically, payment delays from distribution companies were a huge issue due to their weak financial health. Fortunately, this issue has been addressed through recent government regulations, and payments are largely up to date now. Today, the major regulatory challenges revolve around project execution hurdles, force majeure events, connectivity limitations, and frequent changes in legal requirements. Connectivity, in particular, is scarce and triggers multiple disputes.
Given the surge in renewable installations and emerging technologies like batteries, do you think Indian regulators are keeping pace with these developments?
Having a policy is one thing. But unless there is a law backing the policy, implementation will suffer. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has framed regulations for technologies like battery storage. But most state electricity regulatory commissions (SERCs) have not responded with the same urgency. Electricity is a concurrent subject, so without state-level cooperation, national policy objectives cannot be fully realized.
What about emerging project formats, such as hybrid and floating solar, or those that impact local ecosystems? Are these bringing new regulatory complexities?
Pilot projects, such as floating solar, are typically implemented within a government-led framework, where the land or water body is already allocated and approvals are in place. For example, the Rehan reservoir project followed this model.
Problems arise in mainstream, vanilla solar projects in states like Tamil Nadu or Karnataka, where developers face ROW, displacement, and other hurdles. These regular projects often do not receive the same level of facilitation as pilot projects.
Are there comprehensive rules for waste disposal in solar and storage projects?
Battery waste disposal rules have been in place since 2022 and are pretty strict due to the hazardous elements involved. Developers are required to follow detailed procedures.
However, for newer technologies and other solar components, standards are not yet clearly defined by the Central Electricity Authority. India still relies heavily on international standards in the absence of detailed domestic guidelines. Additionally, although solar projects are currently exempt from environmental clearance, it remains unclear whether these exemptions will also apply to new technologies in the future.
What about circular economy models or second-life usage of components? Are there rules in place?
To my knowledge, there is currently no regulatory framework in place for the second-life use of renewable components. We are still in the early stages of our renewable energy journey, and widespread decommissioning is likely to begin around 2035–2040. When the time comes, I am confident the government will develop mechanisms to address this. Currently, waste management rules are in place, but the secondary use of waste is still an emerging topic of conversation.
Why are so many cases pending before electricity regulators? Is it a lack of Infrastructure or a growing volume of disputes?
It is a combination of both. As lawyers, we must also take responsibility for not always helping to resolve matters quickly. When I started in 2008, only a few large business houses operated in this space. With the expansion of small-scale and private players, the number of disputes has increased significantly. Unfortunately, judicial and regulatory reforms have not kept pace with the evolving needs of the industry.
There was an effort to create specialized tribunals under the Electricity Act, with proposals around 2014 and 2017, but that momentum has stalled. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity has only five members to hear disputes across seven benches. That&#8217;s insufficient for today&#8217;s scale.
In your panel, you mentioned we build first and regulate later. What do you see as the most significant regulatory gap in clean energy today?
The most significant gap is that in many cases, regulations do not yet exist. While the CERC has issued about four regulations that cover a broad spectrum, most states are still far behind in creating enabling frameworks for new technologies. The challenge is no longer refining regulations; it is about making them in the first place. Unless state-level regulators align with the national clean energy mission, the sector will face ongoing implementation delays.
(Note: Sections of the interview have been paraphrased for better reading. Check out the video for a full chat)

States Must Step Up to Match India’s National Clean Energy Push: Interview

skv-law-offices

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS