The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) has dismissed petitions filed by industrial consumers, renewable energy developers, and the National Solar Energy Federation of India (NSEFI) challenging the rejection and delayed processing of green energy long term open access (GEOA LTOA) applications.

The Commission held that Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company (MSEDCL) exceeded its role by rejecting green energy LTOA applications, clarifying that only the Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company (MSETCL), acting as the state transmission utility, is empowered to process and decide such applications.

The Commission directed the petitioners to submit fresh green energy LTOA applications and instructed MSETCL to process them in a fair, transparent, non-discriminatory, and time-bound manner, in accordance with the applicable regulations.

Background

The petitions were filed by industrial consumers, including CIE Automotive India, Saarloha Advanced Materials, UltraTech Cement, Sunflag Iron & Steel, and Jindal Saw, as well as by renewable energy generators under ReNew Energy. NSEFI filed a separate petition along with developers including Sunsure and Cleantech Renewables on behalf of several industrial consumers.

The petitioners argued that they had submitted green energy LTOA applications in 2024 and 2025 to procure renewable power from captive solar projects. The applications remained pending for several months before being rejected by MSEDCL.

They contended that the Ministry of Power’s Green Energy Open Access Rules, 2022, the National Load Despatch Centre’s Green Energy Open Access procedure, and MERC’s Distribution Open Access Regulations required such applications to be processed within 15 days. In the absence of a decision within that period, the applications should be deemed approved, subject to technical compliance.

The petitioners also argued that, because their LTOA applications remained undecided, they were compelled to procure renewable power through repeated short-term open-access approvals, thereby incurring higher costs. They sought deemed approval of the pending applications, reimbursement of additional STOA charges, and directions to prevent similar delays in the future.

MSEDCL opposed the petitions, arguing that it was not the statutory authority responsible for approving green energy LTOA applications.

The distribution company submitted that MSETCL is the designated nodal agency for processing green energy medium- and long-term open access applications where both the consumer and the generator are connected to the transmission network. MSEDCL maintained that its role was limited to providing consumer-related information and that it had no authority to approve or reject LTOA applications.

MSETCL informed the Commission that it had repeatedly sought the required consent from MSEDCL but had not received a response despite multiple reminders. It also pointed to operational limitations in the green open access registry (GOAR) portal, noting that it initially lacked a dedicated interface for distribution licensees to record their consent.

Commission’s Analysis

The Commission rejected MSEDCL’s objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions. It observed that although MSETCL is the designated nodal agency for green energy LTOA, MSEDCL has statutory responsibilities to facilitate the approval process by providing the required information and consent to the nodal agency. Since all petitioners challenged a common practice adopted by MSEDCL, the Commission held that a joint petition was maintainable.

Examining the applicable regulatory framework, MERC reviewed the Transmission Open Access Regulations, Distribution Open Access Regulations, the 2023 amendments introducing Green Energy Open Access provisions, the Ministry of Power’s Green Energy Open Access Rules, 2022, and the National Load Despatch Centre’s Green Energy Open Access procedures.

The Commission noted that the green energy open access rules require the designated nodal agency to process applications within 15 days and provide for deemed approval if no decision is communicated within the prescribed period, subject to compliance with the technical requirements.

MERC observed that the petitioners’ applications had remained pending well beyond the prescribed timelines and that neither MSEDCL nor MSETCL had produced evidence of any technical impediment preventing approval.

It also observed that MSEDCL rejected the applications because short-term open access approvals already existed for the same consumers and projects, effectively creating parallel approval processes for the same transactions.

However, the Commission declined to grant deemed approval. It held that MSETCL is the sole nodal agency responsible for processing, evaluating, and deciding green energy long-term open access applications. MSEDCL’s role is confined to providing consent on distribution system-related issues when requested by the nodal agency.

The Commission ruled that MSEDCL has no statutory authority to independently approve or reject green energy LTOA applications. Consequently, MSEDCL’s conduct could not trigger deemed approval under the green energy open access framework.

The Commission stated that any question of deemed approval could arise only from the actions of the designated nodal agency under the applicable regulations.

MERC also noted changes introduced after the petitions were filed.

It observed that the National Load Despatch Centre launched the revamped Green Open Access Registry portal on December 15, 2025, enabling distribution licensees to record their consent directly through the portal. MSETCL subsequently directed that all Green Energy medium- and long-term open access applications be submitted through the revised GOAR platform, beginning January 1, 2026.

Considering these developments, the Commission allowed the petitioners to submit fresh green energy long-term open access applications.

It directed MSETCL to process all renewed applications in accordance with the Green Energy Open Access Rules, MERC regulations, and applicable procedures, and to conduct a comprehensive assessment of technical and network requirements.

The Commission also rejected the petitioners’ request for reimbursement of Short Term Open Access charges.

It held that the petitioners voluntarily continued procuring power through STOA while their Long Term Open Access applications remained pending. Since STOA transactions are processed independently under the Distribution Open Access Regulations, the Commission found no legal basis to direct MSEDCL to reimburse those costs.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.