GERC Upholds Penalty for Unauthorized Rooftop Solar Capacity Beyond 50 kW Limit

The Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) has dismissed Petition No. 2565 of 2025 filed by M/s Tulsi Cold, an MSME cold storage unit in Mahuva, Bhavnagar, over a penalty imposed for operating rooftop solar capacity beyond the sanctioned limit. The Commission passed its order on September 18, 2026.

Tulsi Cold is an industrial electricity consumer with a contract demand of 99 kW. In June 2023, the company applied to the Gujarat Energy Development Agency (GEDA) for installation of a rooftop solar project. GEDA registered the project with an approved AC capacity of 50 kW, and an interconnection agreement was subsequently signed with Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Limited (PGVCL) for the same capacity. The rooftop solar plant was commissioned on September 2, 2024.

During a site inspection conducted by PGVCL on March 25, 2025, the utility found that the consumer was operating a total AC solar capacity of 59.95 kW. The installation included a 50 kW inverter and an additional 10 kW inverter, which was switched on and generating electricity.

Following the inspection, PGVCL issued a supplementary bill and penalty of ₹4,32,729.17 under Regulation 16.2 of the GERC Net Metering Regulations. The penalty related to the additional 9.95 kW AC capacity that had not been approved under the interconnection agreement.

Tulsi Cold challenged the penalty before GERC, arguing that the additional equipment had been physically installed before the plant was commissioned. The company also pointed out that the complete installation had received clearance from the Chief Electrical Inspectorate (CEI), Bhavnagar, in July 2024.

The petitioner argued that no additional solar modules had been installed after commissioning and, therefore, the case should not be treated as an unauthorized capacity addition. The company also stated that, following a 24-hour disconnection notice issued in March 2026, it had paid a revised amount of ₹1,40,110 under protest. The revised amount was calculated using a methodology similar to that followed in an Ombudsman order.

GERC, however, rejected the petitioner’s arguments. The Commission, comprising Chairman Pankaj Joshi and Members Hiren Shah and Jatin N. Thakkar, clarified that approval from the CEI is primarily related to the safety and compliance of electrical installations. Such clearance does not amount to approval of the solar generation capacity by GEDA or the distribution licensee.

The Commission held that operating solar capacity beyond the 50 kW AC capacity approved under the interconnection agreement amounts to unauthorized use under Regulations 16.2 and 16.3 of the GERC Net Metering Regulations. It further clarified that the timing of installation of the additional equipment does not change the regulatory position.

On the ₹1,40,110 revised amount already paid by Tulsi Cold, GERC declined to examine the detailed billing calculation. It noted that disputes concerning billing are within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) and the Electricity Ombudsman under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The petitioner may therefore approach the appropriate forum if it believes that an arithmetic error remains in the revised bill.