The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) has dismissed a petition filed by three renewable energy companies—Enfinity Global Clean Energy, EG Solaire Power, and EG Pavan Surya Power—that sought relief from submitting separate bank guarantees for a shared power transmission asset. In its order dated July 7, 2026, the Commission ruled that the companies must comply with the revised connectivity regulations and provide individual bank guarantees despite sharing the same transmission infrastructure.
The case relates to three separate 100 MW wind power projects that received in-principle connectivity approval at the Kalyanpur Pooling Station in Gujarat. Under a shared infrastructure arrangement, all three projects planned to use a common 220 kV terminal bay for connecting their power generation facilities to the interstate transmission network.
At the time of granting in-principle connectivity, the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) had recorded the requirement for the Connectivity Bank Guarantee-2 (Conn-BG2) as “NIL” for EG Solaire Power and EG Pavan Surya Power. This was because Enfinity Global Clean Energy, acting as the lead generator, had already submitted a Conn-BG2 worth ₹3 crore, which was considered sufficient to secure the shared terminal bay.
However, the regulatory position changed after the Third Amendment to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the Inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022, came into effect on September 9, 2025. Following the amendment, CTUIL issued notices on December 5, 2025, directing EG Solaire Power and EG Pavan Surya Power to submit separate Conn-BG2 bank guarantees of ₹3 crore each within one month. The notices also warned that failure to comply would result in cancellation of their connectivity approvals.
Although the companies submitted the required bank guarantees under protest, they challenged CTUIL’s decision before CERC. They argued that asking each company to furnish a separate guarantee for the same shared terminal bay amounted to an excessive financial burden and over-collateralization. According to the petitioners, the infrastructure was already fully secured through the ₹3 crore guarantee submitted by the lead generator, making additional guarantees unnecessary. They also claimed that the revised regulations were being applied retrospectively to projects that had already received in-principle connectivity.
CTUIL defended its action by stating that the Third Amendment clearly requires all pending applications at the in-principle stage to comply with the revised regulatory framework. The transmission utility argued that the bank guarantee is not linked only to the physical cost of the terminal bay but also serves as a financial security mechanism for each individual connectivity applicant. Therefore, every project developer sharing the infrastructure must independently provide financial assurance to cover potential risks arising from project-specific defaults.
After examining the matter, CERC agreed with CTUIL’s interpretation. The Commission observed that the transitional provisions under Regulation 37.10(b) clearly require pending cases to follow the amended rules. Since the petitioners had not completed the bank guarantee process before the amendment became effective, they were required to comply with the new provisions.
CERC further clarified that the amount specified for Conn-BG2 is only a standard financial benchmark and is not intended to represent the actual construction cost of the terminal bay. Therefore, requiring separate guarantees from each developer sharing the infrastructure does not amount to unjust enrichment. Concluding that CTUIL had acted in accordance with the regulations, the Commission dismissed the petition and declined to grant any relaxation from the applicable rules.
