By DesiMetrics Editorial Team · Updated 30 September 2026
On the same day, the same Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission bench allowed two renewable energy developers to add fresh facts to disputes already pending against Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (GUVNL) — one over a 140 MW wind project in Amreli district, one over a 200 MW solar project in Aravalli district. Both disputes are about the same underlying question: whether project delays were genuinely beyond the developers' control, and whether the liquidated damages GUVNL already deducted from their invoices should be refunded. Neither question has been answered yet — what GERC actually decided this time is narrower, and worth understanding precisely.
What GERC Actually Decided
In two separate orders dated 23 September 2026, a GERC bench of Chairman Pankaj Joshi and Member Jatin N. Thakkar allowed each developer to amend its petition to formally add events that happened after the original petition was filed — chiefly, the liquidated damages GUVNL went on to recover, and each developer's resulting refund claim. GERC's reasoning was the same in both orders: the newly-recovered liquidated damages are directly connected to the force-majeure question already before the Commission, and hearing everything together avoids pushing the developers into a separate lawsuit over what is really one dispute.
Both orders are explicit that this changes nothing about the outcome. As GERC's own order in the wind case states, the grant of amendment “shall not, by itself, constitute an adjudication upon the merits of the claims of either party.” Whether either developer is actually entitled to a refund — and whether GUVNL was right to deduct the money in the first place — is what the Commission still has to decide.
Takeaway: this is a ruling about how the cases will be heard, not about who is right — treat any claim that GERC has “sided with” either developer as premature.
The Two Cases, Side by Side
Different technology, different district, same dispute shape — a developer blaming weather and grid-connection delays for missing its deadline, and GUVNL recovering liquidated damages while that argument is still pending.
| Project Twelve Renewables (wind) | Martial Solren (solar) | |
|---|---|---|
| Capacity | 140 MW (commissioned as 141.9 MW) | 200 MW, in four 50 MW tranches |
| Location | Amreli district | Aravalli district |
| PPA signed | 15 December 2022 | 15 December 2022 |
| Original SCOD | 14 December 2024 | 6 February 2025 |
| Actual commissioning | Phased, Dec 2024 – Jun 2025 | Phased, Feb – Jul 2025 |
| LD recovered by GUVNL | ₹14,40,26,667 | ₹9,17,77,778 |
| Force majeure grounds cited | Connectivity delays, heavy rain/flooding, cyclonic weather, a quarry strike | Force majeure events cited in the main petition (extension sought on that basis) |
| GUVNL's core objection | Proceedings well advanced; connectivity was available on time; LD valid under PPA Clause 3.3 | No valid force majeure; developer admitted some delay; PPA has no interest provision on LD |
Project Twelve Renewables — wind, Amreli district
14 Dec 2024
Original SCOD
13 Dec 2024
Phase 1 commissionedon time
39.6 MW
11–12 Feb 2025
Phase 2 commissioned
29.7 MW
19 Mar 2025
Phase 3 commissioned
13.2 MW
Apr–Jun 2025
Phases 4–5 commissioned
59.4 MW across multiple dates
23 Jun 2025
Full 141.9 MW confirmed to GUVNL
Martial Solren — solar, Aravalli district
6 Feb 2025
Original SCOD (Tranche 1)
6 Feb 2025
Tranche 1 commissioned (50 MW)on time
13 May 2025
Tranche 2 commissioned (50 MW)96 days late
3 Jul 2025
Tranche 3 commissioned (50 MW)147 days late
26 Jul 2025
Tranche 4 commissioned (50 MW) — full 200 MW171 days late
Takeaway: in both cases, the first tranche or phase landed on schedule — the dispute is entirely about what delayed the remaining capacity, and whether that delay was the developer's to bear.
The Jargon, Explained
- SCOD (Scheduled Commercial Operation Date) — the deadline a power purchase agreement sets for a project to actually start supplying power. It is a contractual date, fixed when the PPA is signed.
- COD (Commercial Operation Date) — the date a project actually becomes operational and starts supplying power under the PPA. When it lands after SCOD, the gap between the two is what liquidated damages get calculated against.
- Liquidated Damages (LD) — a pre-agreed penalty, set out in the PPA's own formula, that a developer owes for missing SCOD. DISCOMs typically recover it by deducting the amount from monthly invoices, or against the developer's Performance Bank Guarantee — the security deposit posted when the PPA is signed.
- Force majeure — events genuinely beyond a party's reasonable control — weather, regulatory delays, natural calamities — that, if a regulator accepts them, can excuse some or all of the delay past SCOD without LD liability attaching. Acceptance is never automatic: it is argued and decided case by case, on the specific facts.
Takeaway: both disputes here turn entirely on whether the cited events count as force majeure — everything else in the case follows from that single determination.
Why Project Delays Matter to Consumers — and Why These Two Cases Don't, Yet
GUVNL's cost of buying power — including the cost of covering a shortfall when a contracted renewable project runs late — flows through to household bills over time, not directly or immediately, through a mechanism called FPPPA (Fuel & Power Purchase Price Adjustment). GERC fixes a base FPPPA rate annually, averaged from prior years, and lets GUVNL recover any additional gap between actual and approved power-purchase cost through an incremental quarterly adjustment — any increase beyond 10 paise/unit needs the Commission's prior approval. It is a genuine, regulated pass-through mechanism, not a black box.
What we could not verify is a specific, currently-in-effect FPPPA rate to quote here — search results returned inconsistent, unreliably-dated figures we chose not to repeat. More importantly: nothing in either GERC order ties these two specific disputes to any change in GUVNL's FPPPA rate, in either direction. The connection here is structural — delayed renewable capacity is one of many factors that can affect a DISCOM's power-purchase costs — not a claim that these two cases have moved, or will move, your bill.
Takeaway: understand the mechanism, but don't expect either of these cases to show up on your bill directly — that is not how FPPPA works, and neither order says it does.
What Happens Next
- 18 October 2026 — GUVNL's consolidated reply is due in both cases, responding to each developer's amended petition in full.
- 222 October 2026 — each developer's rejoinder to GUVNL's reply is due, after which pleadings close in both matters.
- 3After that — GERC will schedule the main hearing in each case, where the force-majeure question — and with it, whether either refund claim succeeds — actually gets decided. Neither order gives a date for this yet.
Takeaway: the real decision is still weeks to months away — what happened on 23 September only set the stage for how it will be argued.
Related tools and guides
Frequently asked questions
Has GERC ruled that GUVNL has to refund the liquidated damages it recovered?
No. GERC has only allowed both developers to formally add their refund claims to petitions that were already pending — a procedural step, not a decision. GERC's own order says the amendment "shall not, by itself, constitute an adjudication upon the merits of the claims of either party." Both main disputes will be heard after GUVNL files its reply (due 8 October 2026) and each developer files a rejoinder (due 22 October 2026).
What is liquidated damages (LD) in a solar or wind power purchase agreement?
A pre-agreed penalty a developer owes for missing the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (SCOD) in its PPA, calculated on a formula set out in the contract. DISCOMs typically recover it by deducting the amount from the developer's monthly power-supply invoices, or by encashing part of the Performance Bank Guarantee the developer posted when signing the PPA — exactly what GUVNL did in both cases here.
What is the difference between SCOD and COD?
SCOD (Scheduled Commercial Operation Date) is the deadline a PPA sets for a project to become operational. COD (Commercial Operation Date) is the date it actually does. When COD comes after SCOD, the gap is what liquidated damages are calculated against — unless a force majeure claim excusing some or all of that gap is accepted.
What counts as force majeure for a renewable energy project in India?
Events genuinely beyond a developer's reasonable control that prevent timely commissioning — the wind developer here cited delays in grid connectivity approval, heavy rainfall, flooding, cyclonic weather and a quarry strike. Whether any specific event actually qualifies, and how much SCOD time it justifies excusing, is a factual and contractual question GERC has to decide case by case — it is not automatic, and neither case here has had that question decided yet.
Do these two disputes affect my electricity bill right now?
Not directly, and not yet. Neither case has been decided. Separately, GUVNL's power-purchase costs — including the cost of managing supply shortfalls from delayed projects — do flow through to consumer bills over time via the FPPPA (Fuel & Power Purchase Price Adjustment) mechanism, a GERC-approved quarterly adjustment. These two specific disputes have not been shown to move that number in either direction — treat this as background on how the mechanism works, not a claim about your bill.
How much liquidated damages did GUVNL recover in each case?
Per Project Twelve Renewables' own pleadings in its GERC petition, GUVNL recovered ₹14,40,26,667 (about ₹14.40 crore) from the 140 MW wind project's invoices. Per Martial Solren's pleadings, GUVNL recovered ₹9,17,77,778 (about ₹9.18 crore) from the 200 MW solar project. Both developers say they paid under protest, without prejudice to their right to dispute the underlying liability.
Why did GERC allow the petitions to be amended instead of making the developers file new cases?
GERC's reasoning in both orders was the same: the liquidated-damages recovery happened after the original petitions were filed, but it is directly tied to the same core question already before the Commission — whether the delay qualifies as force majeure. Hearing it as one dispute, GERC held, avoids forcing the developers into separate litigation over what is really the same underlying controversy, and causes no prejudice to GUVNL since it still gets a full opportunity to respond to the amended claims.
Last updated: 30 September 2026. Case details are as reported in GERC's own orders dated 23 September 2026 (as of 30 September 2026): Petition No. 2314 of 2024 (wind) and Petition No. 2460 of 2025 (solar). Also reported by SolarQuarter (29 Sep 2026) and SolarQuarter (30 Sep 2026), both by Mohan Gupta. Neither dispute has been decided on merits — both are at the pleadings stage, with GUVNL's reply due 8 October 2026 and each developer's rejoinder due 22 October 2026. The current FPPPA rate could not be verified from a reliably-dated source as of this writing and is deliberately not quoted above — see our methodology for how we source and verify figures across this site.