The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) has taken up a petition filed by two renewable energy developers seeking clarification on the applicability of the Associated Transmission System Bank Guarantee (ATS BG) requirement for projects connected to state-planned transmission infrastructure.

The petition has been filed by M/s Epipremnum Aureum Renewables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Panthera Leo Persica Renewables Pvt. Ltd. under Sections 86(1)(k) and 94 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The developers have challenged the requirement of submitting an ATS Bank Guarantee of ₹20 lakh per MW under Clause 5.7(iv) of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity Procedure), 2025.

The petitioners, represented by Kunal Shah, J. J. Gandhi, P. C. Garg, and Ashwin Pandya, have sought regulatory clarification from GERC regarding whether the ATS BG provision should apply to projects seeking connectivity at transmission facilities that are already planned and developed by the state transmission utility.

The case involves renewable energy projects with a combined capacity of 373 MW, including wind-solar hybrid and solar projects, proposed to be connected at the 220 kV Mota Asarana Pooling Station. The petitioners are Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) established by BA Prerna Renewables Pvt. Ltd.

According to the developers, the Mota Asarana Pooling Station is part of Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited’s (GETCO) approved long-term transmission plan up to 2032 and was already under development before their connectivity applications were submitted. Therefore, they argued that their projects should fall under Clause 5.1(ii) of the Connectivity Procedure, which applies to state-planned substations, instead of Clause 5.2, which relates to transmission infrastructure developed specifically based on developer requirements.

The petitioners stated that the ATS BG requirement is primarily designed to safeguard transmission utilities against stranded asset risks in cases where dedicated infrastructure is created for a particular developer but the project fails to materialize. They argued that applying the same financial requirement to state-planned substations does not have a direct risk connection and creates an additional financial burden on renewable energy developers.

They further highlighted that the requirement could impact renewable energy expansion efforts and may conflict with Section 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003, which directs regulatory commissions to promote renewable energy generation. The developers also informed the Commission that they have already provided the required Security Bank Guarantee and Land Route Guarantee of ₹10 lakh per MW each.

GETCO, represented by Advocate Harsha Rao, M. J. Vasava, and A. B. Rathod, opposed the petition and argued that it was not maintainable. The transmission utility stated that the petition effectively seeks a review of the Connectivity Procedure, 2025, which was already approved by GERC on August 4, 2025.

GETCO defended the ATS BG provision, stating that it acts as a safeguard against speculative applications and prevents developers from blocking transmission capacity without firm project commitments. The utility argued that such guarantees are necessary to minimize financial risks arising from project delays, capacity reductions, or withdrawals.

GETCO cited instances such as the 220 kV Manglana Substation, where applicants withdrew 470 MW out of the total 740 MW applied capacity, creating challenges in transmission planning.

During the hearing, the GERC bench comprising Chairman Pankaj Joshi, Member Hiren Shah, and Member Jatin N. Thakkar observed that there is a legal distinction between seeking clarification of existing provisions and requesting a review or modification of approved regulations.

The Commission stated that it would first examine whether any ambiguity or inconsistency exists in the Connectivity Procedure, 2025, before deciding whether regulatory intervention or further clarification is required.