The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has issued a significant order on two petitions filed by industrial consumers and renewable energy developers against Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) and Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (MSETCL). The order, issued on July 1, 2026, relates to Case No. 220 of 2025 filed by CIE Automotive India Ltd. and others, and Case No. 226 of 2025 filed by the National Solar Energy Federation of India and others. The dispute concerned the rejection and delay in granting Green Energy Long-Term Open Access (GEOA-LTOA) applications.
The petitioners stated that they had submitted complete applications under the Green Energy Open Access Rules, 2022, and the amended MERC regulations. According to them, these applications should have been processed within 15 days as required under the rules. However, instead of receiving approvals, many applications remained pending for several months before being rejected with a common remark stating, “Existing Open Access, Hence Rejected.” They argued that the rejections were arbitrary, lacked proper reasons, and were issued without detailed speaking orders.
The affected consumers included several leading industrial companies such as CIE Automotive, UltraTech Cement, Sunflag Iron & Steel, Jindal Saw, Saarloha Advanced Materials, KSB, Sandoz, Galaxy Surfactants, RPG Life Sciences, and others. These companies planned to procure renewable electricity from captive solar projects. Since their long-term open access applications were not approved, they had to depend on monthly Short-Term Open Access (STOA) approvals. The petitioners argued that this resulted in higher costs and operational uncertainty. They requested the Commission to grant deemed approval of their long-term applications and direct reimbursement of the additional STOA charges they had incurred.
MSEDCL argued that it was not the nodal agency responsible for approving long-term open access applications. It submitted that MSETCL, as the State Transmission Utility, was the authority responsible for technical evaluation and final approval. MSEDCL stated that it had continued granting monthly STOA approvals and only provided consumer-related information required for processing the applications.
MSETCL, on the other hand, informed the Commission that it could not process the applications because MSEDCL had not provided the required consent and information despite repeated reminders. It also pointed out that the absence of an integrated Green Open Access Registry portal during the relevant period created practical difficulties in processing applications.
After examining the matter, MERC rejected MSEDCL’s objection that the petitions were not maintainable. The Commission held that the distribution licensee has an important statutory responsibility to provide timely consent and information to the nodal agency. Since all the petitioners faced similar delays and identical rejection remarks, the Commission found that the joint petitions were maintainable.
The Commission observed that the Green Energy Open Access Rules require applications to be decided within 15 days and also provide for deemed approval if the nodal agency fails to act within the prescribed period, subject to technical requirements. It further noted that any rejection must be supported by proper written reasons. MERC found that repeatedly rejecting applications with the same remark, without adequate justification, did not comply with the regulatory framework.
The Commission also observed that the delays forced industrial consumers to continue using expensive short-term open access arrangements even after applying for long-term renewable power procurement. It concluded that the actions of MSEDCL, along with procedural issues involving MSETCL, caused avoidable hardship for renewable energy consumers and developers. In its final order, MERC examined the issue of deemed approval, considered the claim for reimbursement of additional STOA charges arising from delayed approvals, and emphasized that both distribution licensees and transmission utilities must strictly follow statutory timelines and issue transparent, reasoned decisions to support faster adoption of renewable energy in Maharashtra.
Discover more from SolarQuarter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
