New Filters: Energy (including nuclear energy, oil & gas, hydrogen & renewable energy)

If you are not happy with the results, please do another search

JSA advises Navalt Green Mobility in connection with its strategic investment from BanyanTree

Solar panels, wind turbines, and a power transmission tower generating renewable energy at sunrise

JSA represented Navalt Green Mobility Private Limited (“Navalt”) and its promoters in raising strategic investment from BanyanTree.

Navalt, led by Sandith Thandasherry, a naval architect, is India’s leader in electric boat design and manufacturing. The company pioneers solar-electric and hybrid ferries, offering sustainable and efficient alternatives to traditional diesel-powered vessels.

As part of the transaction, JSA provided end-to-end legal support, including negotiating and finalizing transaction documents, as well as assisting with closing and post-closing actions.

The transaction team comprised Partner, Archana Tewary and Principal Associate, Savio Tom.

Tags #JSADeals, #LegalAdvisory, #SolarEnergy, ArchanaTewary, BanyanTreeInvestment, ElectricBoats, GreenMarine, IndiaStartups, JSA, SavioTom, SolarFerries, SustainableMobility

JSA Advises Gemstar Infra Pte Ltd Subsidiaries on USD 225.9 Million Smart Metering Facilities from Punjab National Bank

Technician installing a smart meter on a residential building wall

JSA has advised Purvanchal EAV-3 Smart Metering Private Limited and Kanpur Jhansi Banda Smart Metering Private Limited, subsidiaries of Gemstar Infra Pte Ltd, on securing facilities from Punjab National Bank valued at approximately USD 225.9 million (INR 1,950.76 crore). The financing will be utilized for the installation of advanced smart meters across the state of Uttar Pradesh, aiming to enhance energy efficiency and modernize power infrastructure.

The transaction was spearheaded by Karan Mitroo, Partner, with critical support from the Project Finance team comprising Ankita Parasar (Partner), Jhalak Gupta (Associate), and Harshil Kakkar (Associate).

This deal highlights JSA’s continued expertise in advising on large-scale infrastructure and energy sector transactions, particularly in the domain of digital transformation of utilities.

Tags Deal Alert, Digital Utilities, Energy Efficiency, Energy Infrastructure, Gemstar Infra, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Project finance, Punjab National Bank, Smart Metering, Utilities Transformation

JSA Prism | Electricity & Power | July 2025

High-voltage power transmission towers with dynamic neon light trails and an energy pulse symbol at night.

Please click here to download the Prism as PDF.

Central Electricity Regulatory Commission allows submission of land documents in the name of the subsidiary company, where parent company is the connectivity grantee

The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”) in the matters of M/s. Oyster Renewable Energy Private Limited and Anr. vs. Central Transmission Utility of India Limited[1] and Avaada Energy Private Limited and Anr. vs. Central Transmission Utility of India Limited[2], directed the Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (“CTUIL”) to accept land documents in the name of the subsidiary company which was implementing the project, for connectivity granted to the parent company, in order to meet the conditions subsequent under Regulation 11A(1)[3] of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Connectivity and General Network Access to the inter-State Transmission System) Regulations, 2022 (“GNA Regulations”).

Brief facts

M/s Oyster Renewable Energy Private Limited (“OREPL”) and Oyster Green Hybrid One Private Limited (“OGHOPL”) (wholly owned subsidiary of OREPL), and Avaada Energy Private Limited (“AEPL”) and Avaada MPSustainable2 Private Limited (“AMSPL”) (wholly owned subsidiary of AEPL) filed respective petitions under Section 79(1)(c) of the Electricity Act, 2003, read with Regulations 41 and 42 of the GNA Regulations seeking invocation of CERC’s ‘Power to Relax’ and ‘Power to Remove Difficulty’.

Petition No. 453/MP/2025

OREPL (formerly AB Energia Renewables Private Limited) submitted applications to CTUIL for grant of connectivity under the land bank guarantee route (i.e., Regulation 5.8(xi)(c) of the GNA Regulations) for its proposed 181 (one hundred and eighty-one) Mega Watt (“MW”) renewable energy generation project. The project was to be implemented by OGHOPL, formed as a project-specific special purpose vehicle, by utilising the connectivity.
Relying on the existing Regulation 15.1 of the GNA Regulations (enabling transfer/utilisation of connectivity granted to the parent company by its subsidiary and vice-versa without any impediment), the draft third amendment to the GNA Regulations, and highlighting relaxations in this regard previously granted by CERC, OREPL justified submitting land documents in favor of OGHOPL, in line with the requirements under Regulation 5.8(xi) and requested release of connectivity bank guarantees in terms of Regulation 11A of the GNA Regulations.
OREPL’s position was not accepted by CTUIL, for reasons that the third amendment is still at draft stage and that the relaxations granted are on a case-to-case basis. CTUIL submitted that there is no regulatory prescription which permits land documents submitted in the name of the subsidiary to be valid for utilisation of connectivity granted to the parent company, and to state that generic directions regarding acceptance of documents in other matters have not been complied with by CTUIL, is devoid of merit.
OREPL submitted that significant measures towards implementing the project have been undertaken and a substantial amount has been invested towards establishing the project .
Apart from the aspect of ownership, no other deficiencies in the land documents were pointed out by CTUIL. CTUIL did not establish that accepting the documents would result in any loss.

Petition No. 455/MP/2025

AEPL participated in the tender process in terms of the ‘Request for Selection’ document dated February 20, 2024, issued by Solar Energy Corporation of India Limited (“SECI”) for setting up of 1200 (one thousand two hundred) MW inter-state transmission system connected wind-solar hybrid power projects in India under tariff-based competitive bidding. After being declared as successful bidder, AEPL was granted the letter of award for the implementation of a 240 (two hundred and forty) MW wind-solar hybrid project. It opted for the same route as OREPL to apply for connectivity.
AEPL incorporated AMSPL for execution of the project and utilising the connectivity granted. AMSPL was in the process of executing the power purchase agreement with SECI. AMSPL had taken substantial steps towards implementation of the project.
Upon scrutiny of documents submitted by AEPL, CTUIL observed that the title report and land documents were not in the name of the connectivity grantee and requested replacement. CTUIL also informed that failure to submit documents would render action under Regulation 11B of the GNA Regulations.
Similar submissions were made by AEPL/AMSPL, as made by petitioners in Petition No. 453/MP/2025, thereby urging permission to submit required land documents in the name of the subsidiary, directing consequential action of returning bank guarantee within 7 (seven) days to AEPL and additionally, also allowing submission of financial closure documents in the name of its subsidiary (as and when required).

Issue

The issue in both the petitions was with regard to submission of land documents in the name of the special purpose vehicle/ subsidiary for compliance with Regulation 11A(1) of the GNA Regulations, where the parent company is the connectivity grantee.

Findings and analysis

CERC, vide record of proceeding of hearing dated May 13, 2025 in the subject petitions, had directed CTUIL to process the land documents in the name of subsidiary company where connectivity has been granted to the parent company or vice versa, for compliance of Regulation 11A(1) of the GNA Regulations, for all such cases, till the issuance of the third amendment to the GNA Regulations. This was subject to necessary verification under the (Indian) Company’s Act.
Petitioners have submitted that the primary issue will stand resolved if the land documents in the name of the subsidiary are accepted by CTUIL towards connectivity granted to the parent company. Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to CTUIL to return the connectivity bank guarantees upon processing the land documents.
In light of the discussions, the connectivity grantees in each petition are allowed to submit land documents in the name of the subsidiaries, which is implementing the project, to meet the requirement of Regulation 11A(1) of the GNA Regulations, subject to necessary verification of whether the entity with land documents is a subsidiary company under the (Indian) Company’s Act.
Regarding the return of bank guarantees, only the bank guarantee submitted under Regulations 5.8(vii)(c) or 5.8(xi)(c) of the GNA Regulations is required to be returned within 7 (seven) days of submission of the stipulated documents. The connectivity bank guarantees are returned in terms of Regulation 16 of the GNA Regulations after the generating station achieves commercial operation date. Accordingly, the contention to return connectivity bank guarantees, other than the bank guarantee submitted under Regulation 5.8(xi)(c) of the GNA Regulations, on submission of land documents, is rejected.
The issue regarding submission of financial closure documents has been dealt with in CERC’s order dated January 16, 2025[4] and record of proceeding of hearing dated January 29, 2025[5], as per which the CERC has already directly CTUIL for processing financial closure documents in the name of the subsidiary company where the connectivity grantee is the parent company. Accordingly, prayer by AEPL and AMSPL relating to documents for fulfilment of conditions subsequent under Regulations11A(2) has already been addressed.
CTUIL is directed to ensure that documents of financial closure and land are in the name of the company that is implementing the project. A case where the parent company is a connectivity grantee, but the project is being implemented by the parent company itself, and the financial closure documents are being furnished in the name of some of its subsidiaries, cannot be allowed.

Conclusion

The process of submission of land and financial closure documents under the GNA Regulations is a critical compliance requirement which ensures that only committed applicants are granted connectivity access. The structure wherein a subsidiary or special purpose vehicle implements the project for which connectivity has been granted to the parent company is a widely adopted and well-established practice in the industry. CERC’s decision to allow the submission of land documents in the name of the subsidiary will streamline the procedural aspects of utilising the granted connectivity, thereby making the process more convenient and efficient. This approach acknowledges the practical realities of project structuring.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Vishnu Sudarsan
Partner

Sugandha Somani Gopal
Partner

Mehar Vasant
Senior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Petition No. 453/MP/2025 along with 39/IA/2025 (order dated June 27, 2025)

[2] Petition No. 455/MP/2025 along with 41/IA/2025 (order dated June 27, 2025)

[3] As per Regulation 11A(1) of the GNA Regulations, an applicant, which is a renewable energy generating station (other than hydro generating station), covered under Regulation 5.8(xi)(c) of the GNA Regulations, is required to submit documents for land in terms of Regulation 5.8(xi)(b) of the GNA Regulations, within 18 (eighteen) months of issuance of an in-principle grant of connectivity or within 12 (twelve) months of issuance of a final grant of connectivity, whichever is earlier. The bank guarantee submitted under Regulation 5.8(xi)(c) of the GNA Regulations will be returned within 7 (seven) days of submission of stipulated documents as proof of ownership or lease rights or land use rights.

[4] Petition No. 503/MP/2024

[5] Petition No. 147/MP/2025

Tags CERC, Connectivity Regulations, Electricity Law, Infrastructure Law, JSA, JSA Legal, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Power Projects, Subsidiary Company

APTEL Holds That State Electricity Regulatory Commissions Have Jurisdiction Under Section 86(1)(f) of The Electricity Act, To Adjudicate Disputes between Licensees and Generating Companies and any other agency/entity directly engaged in generation and procurement of power on behalf of Government or the Licensees – JSA Successfully Represents Hindustan Cleanenergy

Judge's gavel resting on legal documents with industrial structures in the background at sunset

JSA Advocates and Solicitors successfully represented Hindustan Cleanenergy Pvt. Ltd. (“HCL”) before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) in an Appeal filed by Punjab Energy Development Agency (“PEDA”) wherein before delving into the merits of the matter, APTEL examined the maintainability of Petitions before State Electricity Regulatory Commissions under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Electricity Act”) while adjudicating disputes involving Government Agencies. By its Order dated 12.07.2025, APTEL has held that:-

Government Agencies like PEDA can be impleaded as a party to disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act with regards to PEDA’s activities which are directly related to generation and procurement of power either for the Government or for the distribution licensees.
While adjudicating disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, State Electricity Regulatory Commissions are competent to issue directions to PEDA and in case PEDA is aggrieved by any such direction by the Commission, PEDA will be competent to maintain an Appeal before APTEL under Section 111 of the Electricity Act.
The expression “any other agency/entity directly engaged in generation and procurement of power on behalf of the Government or the Licensees” shall be read after the expression “Disputes between Licensee and Generating Companies” in Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act.

The brief facts leading to the dispute are under:-

HCL is the parent company of Magnet Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. (“MBPL”) which was incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary of HCL in terms of the Letter of Award (“LoA”) issued to HCL.
MBPL is a generating company in terms of Section 2(28) of the Electricity Act and has set up a 50 MW Solar Power Project (“Project”) in the State of Punjab.
MBPL had entered into the following agreements w.r.t. the Project:-
- Implementation Agreement (“IA”) dated 24.11.2015 with PEDA; and,
- Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) dated 12.01.2016 with Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (“PSPCL”).
In terms of Article 6.2 of the IA r/w Article 10.1.0 of the PPA, the Scheduled Commercial Operation Date (“SCOD“) of the Project was to be achieved within 12 months from the date of signing of PPA i.e., by 11.01.2017.
In terms Section 3 of the Request for Proposal (“RfP“) dated 29.06.2015, HCL had deposited Unconditional Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5 Crores with PEDA.
Due to the alleged delay in commissioning of the Project, PEDA wrongfully encashed the Bank Guarantee partially for Rs. 3.05 Crores.
On 30.05.2017, HCL and MBPL filed Petition No. 37 of 2017 before Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (“PSERC”) seeking extension of the SCOD till 14.02.2017 due to occurrence of the Force Majeure events which were beyond the control of HCL/MBPL and sought refund of wrongful encashment of HCL’s Bank Guarantee by PEDA on account of the alleged delay in commissioning the Project.
By way of the Order dated 22.03.2018, PSERC had held that:-
- The delay/extension of 36 days from 20.12.2016 to 25.01.2017 in commissioning the Project was caused due to Civil Court Orders restraining MBPL from erecting transmission towers and constructing transmission line in land belonging to various land owners.
- MBPL was granted extension in achieving CoD of 11 days from 23.01.2017 to 03.02.2017 for Unit I and extension of 4 days from 30.01.2017 to 03.02.2017 for Unit II. In view of the above, Ld. PSERC held that the delay in commissioning of Unit I was 15 days (26 days – 11 days) and Unit II is 30 days (34 days – 4 days).
- PEDA is entitled to encashment of the Bank Guarantee in respect of delayed commissioning to the above extent in terms of IA/PPA.
- The Bank Guarantee for the remaining amount was directed to be released to HCL within 7 working days from the date of the Order.
Similar Appeals were filed by PEDA against various orders passed by PSERC which directed PEDA to return Bank Guarantees to the Project Developers.
Before dwelling into the Appeals on merits, PEDA raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of any directions issued by PSERC to PEDA while adjudicating disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act. Accordingly, APTEL has first considered the issue of maintainability of Petitions against PEDA.
Since the matters involved interpretation of Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act and the wide ramifications that will occur due to the decision in the batch Appeals, APTEL requested three Senior Advocates to assist APTEL as amicus curiae.

By its Order dated 12.07.2025, APTEL has, inter alia, held that:-

Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act confers power upon the SERCs to ‘regulate’ electricity purchase and procurement undertaken by the distribution licensees for distribution and supply within the State.
Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act empowers SERCs to adjudicate upon disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration.
The word ‘Dispute’ touches upon all aspects of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity envisaged under the Electricity Act.
Even though the clause specifies that the disputes to be brought before the Commission for adjudication should be between a licensee and a generating company, there may be situations where the disputes would involve the rights and obligations of a person or entity other than a licensee and a generating company. There may also be situations which necessitates passing any directions against the State Governments or its instrumentalities.
Once the SERCs find that any act of State Government or instrumentality of a State Government related to tariff determination is against consumer interest, SERCs would not be powerless to issue appropriate directions which would binding upon the State Government and its instrumentalities.
Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with Section 86(1)(b), preamble of the Electricity Act and the accompanying Statement of Objects and Reasons. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that a statute must be read as a whole. One provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act.
Section 86(1)(f) specifically empowers SERCs to decide the disputes between Generating Companies and Licensees. Sometimes distribution licensees procure the power itself, whereas, sometimes the procurement takes place through a nodal agency appointed by the Government. Section 86(1)(b) of the Electricity Act enjoins upon the State Commission to also regulate the procurement process of power which can be facilitated through a nodal agency.
The legislative intent behind Section 86(1)(b) of the Act is to empower SERCs to regulate all matters regarding the electricity purchase and procurement process.
Section 86(1)(f) cannot be read in isolation and has to be read with Section 86(1)(b) which would make it limpid that all the disputes relating to procurement process would necessarily fall within the domain of SERCs, irrespective of whether the procurement process is initiated and carried out by the distribution licensee itself or through a nodal agency.
As the power procurement process and purchase of electricity are regulated activities under Section 86(1)(b), the related disputes would fall within the powers of the SERC and are amenable to its jurisdiction. It hardly matters whether the procurement process is carried out by the distribution licensee itself or through a nodal agency.
The SERC having been set up under the special statute i.e. Electricity Act with one of the functions to resolve the disputes, alone ought to be held to have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a dispute and to rule upon the entitlement of PSPCL for liquidated damages along with the entitlement of PEDA for encashment of the Performance Bank Guarantee of the project developer.
The words ‘and any other agency/entity directly engaged in generation and procurement of power on behalf of Government or the Licensees’ shall be read after the expression ‘Disputes between Licensee and Generating Companies’ in Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act. PEDA can be impleaded as a party to disputes under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act regarding its activities which are directly related to generation and procurement process of power either for the Government or for the Distribution Licensees.

JSA’s Disputes Team was led by Akshat Jain (Partner) alongwith Shikhar Verma (Associate).

Tags APTEL, Dispute Alert, Electricity Act, Energy Law, Hindustan Cleanenergy, JSA, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Victory, Power Disputes, Regulatory Law, SERC Jurisdiction

Telangana High Court Allows Writ Petition, Sets Aside EESL’s Suspension Letter Against Vinci Global Private Limited

Close-up of a wooden judge’s gavel beside golden scales of justice on a turquoise wooden table.

JSA successfully represented Vinci Global Private Limited (“Vinci”) before the High Court of Telangana in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (“Writ Petition”). The petition challenged a suspension letter dated October 14, 2024 (“Suspension Letter”), issued by Energy Efficiency Services Limited (“EESL”), which barred Vinci from participating in EESL’s tendering processes for one year.

Vinci had participated in a tender floated by EESL for the installation and maintenance of LED streetlights in Telangana. After submitting its bid, and before any letter of award was issued, Vinci withdrew from the tender process citing its financial situation. Subsequently, EESL issued the Suspension Letter, effectively blacklisting Vinci for a period of one year, without providing a prior show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard.

Vinci approached the High Court, arguing that the suspension/blacklisting order was issued in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice, was arbitrary, and would cause irreparable damage to its business and reputation. Vinci contended that such a severe action, which has civil consequences, cannot be taken without affording a fair hearing.

By its final order dated July 2, 2025, the High Court of Telangana allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Suspension Letter. The Court held that an order of blacklisting, which has severe consequences, cannot be sustained without following the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that EESL had failed to provide a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing to Vinci before passing the impugned order, rendering it unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Legal Team

The matter was led by Harshavardhan Abburi (Partner), supported by the Constitutional & Administrative Law Litigation Team, including:

Poojitha Babbepalli, Principal Associate
Manoj Bhukya, Associate
Pooja Gandhi, Associate
Phanindranath Chowdary Ponneganti, Associate

Tags Administrative Law, Blacklisting, JSA, JSA Disputes, Legal Victory, Litigation Success, Natural Justice, Public Procurement, Telangana High Court, Vinci Global

JSA Prism | Energy | July 2025

Solar panels and wind turbines on a grassy field under a blue sky, symbolizing clean and renewable energy generation.

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

A snapshot of the Approved List of Models and Manufacturers introduced by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

The Approved List of Models and Manufacturers (“ALMM”) is a regulatory mechanism introduced by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (“MNRE”) in January 2019 to ensure the quality and authenticity of solar photovoltaic (“PV”) modules and cells used in certain projects. ALMM was conceived to address concerns regarding misrepresentation by solar manufacturers about products’ origin or quality etc.

Under the ALMM framework, MNRE enlists eligible models and manufacturers of solar PV cells and modules that comply with Bureau of Indian Standards (“BIS”) quality standards along with efficiency threshold requirements viz:

ALMM Order dated January 2, 2019 (“2019 ALMM Order”) provided for 2 (two) separate lists i.e. List-I for solar PV modules and List-II for solar PV cells;
the first formal ALMM List-I (for modules) was approved and published by MNRE on March 10, 2021. This list required BIS compliance; and
an efficiency threshold was introduced by MNRE in its Office Memorandum (“OM”) dated May 10, 2023.

Only the models and manufacturers included in the ALMM list are permitted for use in the designated solar power projects (detailed below). This ensures use of tested quality products from vetted manufacturing facilities.

The conditions have undergone several changes from time to time to meet the industry demands. Initially, in 2019 ALMM requirements applied only to solar projects that are implemented by the Government or receive Government support and projects set up for sale of electricity to the Government under Section 63 of Electricity Act, 2003. In January 2022, MNRE, vide OM dated January 13, 2022, expanded the scope of ALMM to include renewable energy projects under open access and net metering arrangements. After this amendment, any new solar projects applying for open access (third-party sale of power) or net metering (rooftop solar with grid feed-in) would also need to use ALMM-listed modules.

Key developments (2019 till 2025)

January 2022 – Scope expansion: An amendment on January 13, 2022 broadened ALMM’s applicability to include open-access and net-metered projects (in addition to government and utility-scale projects). Consequently, from a set date, even privately developed projects using open access or net metering would need ALMM-approved modules.
October 2022 – Exemption: MNRE clarified that private rooftop or captive self-consumption projects i.e. projects without any export to grid are not subject to ALMM (modules or cells).
March 2023 – Temporary suspension: In a significant move reflecting industry supply considerations, MNRE put ALMM on hold for 1 (one) year. An OM dated May 10, 2023, announced that the ALMM Order (for modules) is “held in abeyance for one financial year, i.e. FY 2023-24.”. This meant that solar projects commissioned by March 31, 2024, were exempted from the ALMM module procurement requirement. This pause was likely aimed at relieving supply constraints or high costs.
Early 2024 – Reinstatement and refocusing: As FY 2023-24 drew to a close, MNRE prepared to reimpose ALMM from April 2024, but with some refinements. On February 9, 2024, an order was issued stating that ALMM for modules would again be mandatory w.e.f. April 1, 2024. This directive sought to narrow the scope of ALMM to its original intent (government and subsidized projects only). MNRE signalled that purely commercial projects without government support would be out of ALMM’s ambit going forward.
However, shortly after, on February 15, 2024, MNRE put this re-imposition order on hold until further notice.
Ultimately, MNRE did confirm the end of the ALMM suspension through a clarification on March 29, 2024, stating that the ALMM (List-I for modules) would come back into effect from April 1, 2024 (after the 1 (one) year hiatus). Specific proposal to permanently exclude open access and captive projects was not formally enacted (since the February 9^th order was suspended).
As of April 2024, the ALMM requirement for modules is in force generally for Government, open access, and net-metered projects as per the earlier framework.
Mid/Late 2024 – Additional exemptions and reforms: In May 2024, MNRE issued an order providing a special exemption for renewable energy projects dedicated to green hydrogen production. Specifically, any solar/wind plants located in a Special Economic Zone (“SEZ”) or Export Oriented Unit (“EOU”) that supply power exclusively to an electrolyser facility (for green hydrogen or its derivatives) located within an SEZ/EOU are exempted from ALMM requirements until December 31, 2030.
October 2024 – Reiteration of exemptions: On October 14, 2024, MNRE issued a clarification essentially reiterating the earlier exemption for open access and net-metering projects with prior approvals (pre-October 1, 2022).
Mid 2025: On May 16, 2025, MNRE confirmed that behind-the-meter captive plants owned by Government entities or public sector undertakings have never been exempt from ALMM modules (List I). On July 10, 2025, MNRE issued a clarification on applicability to Government/ public sector undertaking behind-the-meter solar projects commissioned before and after June 1, 2026. For projects commissioned after June 1, 2026, MNRE mandates usage of ALMM cells. For projects commissioned before June 1, 2026, MNRE exempts usage of ALMM cells.

Future Outlook – ALMM List-II (Solar PV Cells)

One major development as of late 2024 is MNRE’s plan to finally operationalise ALMM List – II for solar cells. Although the 2019 ALMM Order envisioned an effective List-II alongside List – I, in practice no List-II was launched for years. The reason was that India’s domestic solar cell manufacturing capacity was insufficient to meet demand. ALMM thus focused on modules (List-I) while developers were free to import solar cells for use in domestic module assembly.
By 2024, with Government incentives spurring new cell factories, MNRE determined that List-II can be implemented in the near future. An amendment announced in late 2024 sets a timeline: ALMM List-II (Approved List of solar PV cell manufacturers) will come into effect from June 1, 2026. This lead time gives cell manufacturers a window to ramp up and obtain BIS certification and ALMM listing.
When List-II becomes effective the ALMM policy will require that any solar module used in an ALMM-mandated project must be made with solar cells sourced from ALMM List-II manufacturers.
By mid-2026, India intends to have ALMM fully spanning the solar supply chain. This will ensure both modules and the key components (cells) are used in government facilitated projects.

Compliance of ALMM requirements for manufacturers

For manufacturers, getting onto the ALMM List is a detailed process aimed at verifying both quality and genuine manufacturing capability viz:

BIS certification: A manufacturer must first obtain BIS registration/certification for each model of PV module or cell it wants to list. This refers to the compulsory product certification scheme under the ‘Solar Photovoltaics Systems, Devices and Components Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2017’.
Application: The manufacturer must submit an application in the prescribed format for each model along with an application fee and documentary evidence of its financial and manufacturing capabilities for the past 3 (three) years (or since inception, if newer). This includes data on raw material purchases, production output, sales, and financial statements (P&L, balance sheet). In 2023 MNRE revamped application/inspection fees (scaled to nameplate capacity) and set a uniform 2 (two) year validity for all listings (so that adding models does not extend expiry).
Preliminary assessment: MNRE examines the documents and may conduct a preliminary verification especially for new or foreign applicants where domestic filings are not available. If a unit operates outside Indian jurisdiction (e.g. a foreign module maker applying for ALMM) and necessary data isn’t otherwise verifiable, MNRE can do an initial inspection to confirm the existence and operations of the factory.
Factory inspection: Before enlistment, a team from MNRE (or an authorized agency, such as NISE) conducts a thorough inspection of the manufacturing facility.
Enlistment decision: If all criteria are met MNRE issues an order enlisting the model and manufacturer in ALMM List-I or II as applicable.
Validity and renewal: The ALMM enlistment initially lasts 2 (two) years after which a manufacturer must apply for renewal to stay on the list. Renewal involves showing continued satisfactory performance of the products i.e. providing updated documents, evidence of quality maintenance and fresh inspection etc.
Oversight and removal: MNRE retains the right to conduct random audits, quality tests, and inspections at any time on ALMM-listed companies. If an enlisted manufacturer is found non-compliant, for instance, product quality issues, failure to meet standards, or evidence that they are outsourcing production contrary to ALMM’s intent, MNRE can remove (delist) the manufacturer/model from the ALMM.

Therefore, manufacturers seeking ALMM listing must prove their credibility (via certifications and audits) and continually comply with monitoring.

Conclusion

ALMM has become a cornerstone of India’s renewable energy procurement policy, marrying quality assurance with an implicit industrial policy to boost domestic manufacturing. For project developers and EPC contractors, ALMM compliance is now a critical checkpoint.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Poonam Verma Sengupta
Partner

Gayatri Aryan
Principal Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

Tags ALMM, Clean Energy, Energy Policy, JSA, JSA Newsletter, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, Made In India, MNRE, Renewable Energy, Solar Energy India, Solar PV

JSA Prism | Energy | July 2025

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Environment rules amended: Revised legal framework for sulphur dioxide emission by thermal power plants

On July 11, 2025, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“MoEFCC”) notified the Environment (Protection) Fourth Amendment Rules, 2025 (“Fourth Amendment Rules”). The Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 (“Principal Rules”) have been amended from time to time by the MoEFCC to prescribe revised timelines for thermal power plants to comply with the emission standards for pollutants pertaining to sulphur dioxide which were originally notified by the Central Government by its notification dated December 7, 2015. The Fourth Amendment Rules prescribes revised timelines for compliance by thermal power plants in a graded manner.

Significant changes under the Fourth Amendment Rules

Category ‘C’ thermal power plants are exempt from complying with sulphur dioxide emission standards so long as such Category ‘C’ plants adhere to the stack height requirements prescribed by the notification dated August 30, 1990 and ensure such compliance by December 31, 2029.
Levy of environment compensation on non-compliant thermal power plants starting with INR 0.20/unit and increasing to INR 0.40/unit for non-compliance for a period of 366 (three hundred and sixty-six) days and beyond.
The Central Pollution Control Board (“CPCB”) had issued phase-wise timelines to 189 (one hundred and eighty-nine) thermal power plants in the country aggregating to approx. 166.7 GW (one hundred and sixty-six point seven gigawatt) of the installed thermal capacity to comply with the revised emission norms prescribed by MoEFCC notification dated December 7, 2015 (“2015 Notification”). This entailed an approx. expenditure of INR 80,000 crore (Indian Rupees eighty thousand crore) which is only the base cost of Flue Gas Desulphurisation (“FGD”) system and excludes soft cost such as Interest during Construction (IDC), taxes and duties, Foreign Exchange Rate Variation, expenditure towards project management and engineering services and pre-operative expenses, which is to be allowed at actuals after commissioning of the FGD system.
In response to multiple representations from stakeholders and due to supply chain delays, the timelines stipulated under the 2015 Notification have been periodically revised, with the most recent extension provided by MoEFCC, vide its notification dated December 30, 2024 (“2024 Notification”). The timelines were extended as follows:-
- category A: up to December 31, 2027 (initially it was December 31, 2024);
- category B: up to December 31, 2028 (initially it was December 31, 2025); and
- category C: up to December 31, 2029 (initially it was December 31, 2026).
Following the revision of timelines under the 2024 Notification, MoEFCC received multiple representations seeking exemptions or relaxations in timelines of these emission standards. These representations were due to limited availability of technology providers, techno-economic feasibility, negative impact of COVID19 pandemic on supply chain, price escalation due to high demand and low supplies, low concentration of sulphur dioxide in ambient air and heavy burden on consumers due to increase in electricity prices etc. Notably, the MoEFCC also acknowledged receiving a recommendation from the Ministry of Power in this regard.
Thereafter, a committee was constituted in the CPCB to examine these issues in totality, assess the study reports and make a recommendation on applicability of the revised emission standard and the timelines. The Fourth Amendment Rules have been notified after taking into consideration the recommendation made in its Report by the CPCB.
The monitoring of emission standards will now be monitored by a task force which will be constituted by the CPCB comprising of representatives from the MoEFCC, Ministry of Power, Central Electricity Authority and CPCB.
The category wise classification of thermal power plants is provided below:-

Category	Location/area
Category A	Within 10 km radius of National Capital Region or cities having million plus population
Category B	Within 10 km radius of Critically Polluted Areas or Non-attainment cities
Category C	Other than those included in Category A and B

The revised timelines for thermal power plants to comply with the emission standard norms for sulphur dioxide is provided below:-

Category	Revised Timelines
Category A	December 31, 2027
Category B	To be decided on a case to case basis by the Central Government based upon the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee in charge of the thermal power projects constituted under the Environment Impact Assessment notification, 2006 as per the following procedure:- a) in case environmental clearance has already been granted, such plants or units may opt for review of the applicability of sulphur dioxide standards provided that concerned project proponent applies for such review on the PARIVESH portal within 6 months from the date of issue of this notification. In case the sulphur dioxide standards are decided as applicable, the same will be effective from December 31, 2028 and in all other cases, the thermal power plant will comply with the stack height criteria by December 31, 2028 as notified vide notification[1] dated August 30, 1990 (“1990 Notification”); b) in the case of upcoming thermal power plants for which environmental clearance has not yet been granted, the applicability of sulphur dioxide standards and the effective date thereof will be as specified in environmental clearance granted to each such projects, following the procedure as laid down in Environment Impact Assessment notification, 2006 as amended from time to time. Where the sulphur dioxide standards are not made applicable, the thermal power plants will comply with the stack height criteria specified in the 1990 Notification; and c) these standards for sulphur dioxide emissions will be applicable with effect from December 31, 2028, in respect of all those plants or units which have not opted for review within the given timeframe as specified in para (a) above.
Category C	Sulphur dioxide emission standards will not be applicable to all Category C thermal power plants subject to ensuring compliance of stack height criteria specified under the 1990 Notification. The time lines for ensuring compliance of stack height criteria by the existing Category C Thermal Power Plants will be December 31, 2029.

Thermal power plants that are declared to retire before December 31, 2030 will be exempt from complying with the prescribed sulphur dioxide emission standards, provided an undertaking is submitted to the CPCB and the Central Electricity Authority seeking exemption on the ground of proposed retirement of such plant. However, if any such plants continue to operate beyond December 31, 2030, environment compensation at the rate of INR 0.40/unit will be levied on the electricity generated.
The Central Government may on the recommendation of the CPCB, by an order grant extension of timelines to thermal power plants from compliance of sulphur dioxide emission standards.
Environment compensation will be levied on non-retiring and non-compliant thermal power plants after the revised timelines for compliance as follows:-

Non-compliant operation beyond the timeline	Environment compensation (INR per unit of electricity generated)
0 – 180 days	0.20
181 – 365 days	0.30
366 days and beyond	0.40

Conclusion

Since the issuance of the 2015 Notification by MoEFCC, the thermal power plants in the country have been battling before various regulators, the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and Supreme Court due to the huge capital expenditure involved in complying with the revised emission standards and the resultant compensation claims in terms of their respective power purchase agreements. Interestingly, the question of whether the 2015 Notification is a change in law event necessitating compensation to thermal power plants due to compliance with the revised emission standards for both Section 62 (cost-plus) and Section 63 (competitively bid out) projects is pending before the Supreme Court.

The Fourth Amendment Rules provide much needed clarity insofar as the Category ‘C’ thermal power plants are concerned which have now been exempted from complying with the sulphur dioxide emission standards so long as such Category ‘C’ plants adhere to the stack height requirements specified under the 1990 Notification and ensure such compliance by December 31, 2029.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Amit Kapur
Partner

Akshat Jain
Partner

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Notification number GSR 742 (E)

Tags Emission Standards, Environment Rules, JSA, JSA Legal Update, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyers, Legal Updates, MoEFCC, Pollution Control, SO2 Emissions, Thermal Power Plants

APTEL upholds procedural fairness; WBERC’S order against Surya Alloy set aside and remanded.

Glowing light bulb with justice scales symbol inside, representing regulatory clarity and legal insight in the power sector.

JSA Advocates and Solicitors successfully represented Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. (“Surya Alloy”) before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) challenging the Order dated 12.08.2022 (“Impugned Order”) passed by West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission (“WBERC”) in Case No. C15/993, which related to Damodar Valley Corporation’s (“DVC”) demand for additional energy charges during the restricted drawal period. While setting aside the Impugned Order, APTEL has reaffirmed the importance of procedural compliance and the principles of natural justice in regulatory proceedings.

The brief facts leading up to the passing of the Judgment are summarised below:-
- On 06.02.2019, Surya Alloy had filled in a Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court inter alia, challenging the vires of Regulation 4.4 of the WBERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2011 and seeking a direction for refund of all payments made by the Appellant towards the additional energy charges levied by DVC, for the months of June 2015 to December 2018.
- On 12.02.2021, Calcutta High Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by Surya Alloy, while:-
  - Permitting Surya Alloy to approach Ld. WBERC on the aspect of additional energy charges for the months of June 2015 to December 2018, while keeping the issue relating to the vires of Regulation 4.4 of the Tariff Regulations open.
  - Directing Ld. WBERC to pass the order within 6 months after hearing parties.
- On 26.02.2021, Surya Alloy filed the Petition before WBERC, wherein:-
  - (On 31.01.2022, the Petition was heard by a quorum consisting of the Chairperson and two Members.
  - On 28.04.2022, one of the Members of Ld. WBERC retired.
  - On 18.07.2022, the Petition was heard by quorum consisting of the Chairperson and the remaining Member.
  - On 01.08.2022, the Chairperson retired.
  - On 12.08.2022, the Impugned Order was passed by Ld. WBERC. Notably, while the covering page of the Impugned Order notes the presence of the Chairperson (who had retired by then) along with another Member, the Impugned Order was signed by only one Member.
The Impugned Order passed by WBERC was principally challenged on the ground that the Impugned Order was passed in contravention of:-
- Regulation 2.14.1 and 2.14.2 of WBERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2013 (“CBR Regulations”), which envisages that the Orders passed by WBERC shall be signed by (all) the members who considered and/or heard the matter; and
- The settled principle of natural justice that “one who hears must decide”.
By its Judgment dated 04.07.2025 (“Judgment”), APTEL set aside the Impugned Order and remanded the matter to WBERC for fresh consideration. The key findings of APTEL are summarised below:-
- The principle of ‘one who hears must decide’ would apply where the Appropriate Commission exercises adjudicatory powers under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, since a personal hearing is invariably provided in such cases to parties on either side.
- Regulation 2.14 of the CBR Regulations excludes the application of this principle during the tariff determination exercise, since it permits:-
  - Even a member who has not heard the matter to sign the order, in order to validate it. Such instances may arise during the tariff determination exercise.
  - Existing members, who either heard or considered the matter to sign the order, even if one of them retired, resigned or been removed after the hearing but before the order was signed.
- While tariff determination is a quasi-judicial exercise, it does not mandatorily require an oral hearing, since:-
  - If Parliament had intended an oral hearing to be mandatory in such cases, it would have explicitly provided, instead of confining the requirement of an oral hearing only to a situation where the tariff application, is intended to be rejected by the Commission, under Section 64(3)(b) of the Electricity Act
  - Unlike an adjudicatory order passed under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act, which may be required to be preceded by a hearing being afforded to the parties concerned, reading such a requirement, into the provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder, may not be justified where the order passed by the Commission relate to matters other than those specifically falling under Section 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act.
- The principle of ‘one who hears must decide’ may not apply in situations where the Commission undertakes a tariff determination exercise under Section 62 read with Section 64 of the Electricity Act, unless the applicable regulations expressly stipulate an oral hearing to be provided to the applicant, before orders are passed by the Commission.
- WBERC’s contention that its actions are saved by Section 93 of Electricity Act do not hold merit, since, in terms of the directions of the Calcutta High Court and, since three Members of WBERC had initially heard the matter pursuant to the directions of the Calcutta High Court, the order ought to have been passed and signed by all the three Members, and not just by one of them. The fact that two of them had retired in the interregnum, would require the remaining member to hear the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.

APTEL has reaffirmed the importance of procedural compliance and the principles of natural justice in regulatory proceedings. The decision underscores that orders must reflect proper constitution and participation of the adjudicating authority to ensure fairness and transparency.

JSA’s Disputes team was led by Amit Kapur (Lead Partner), along with Akshat Jain (Partner) and Sayan Ghosh (Associate).

Tags APTEL judgment, Electricity Act, Energy Law, JSA Disputes, JSA Victory, Legal Compliance, Natural Justice, Power Sector India, Regulatory Law, Surya Alloy, Tariff Regulations, WBERC

JSA Prism | Electricity & Power | July 2025

Please click here to download the Prism as PDF.

Draft amendments proposed in Rule 18 (relating to Energy Storage Systems) of Electricity Rules, 2005

The Ministry of Power on June 11, 2025, issued the draft Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (“Draft Rules”), proposing to make amendments to Rule 18 of the Electricity Rules, 2005. Rule 18 relates to Energy Storage Systems (“ESS”). The Draft Rules are in furtherance of notification dated January 29, 2022, issued by Ministry of Power, titled ‘Clarification regarding usage of Energy Storage System (ESS) in various applications across the entire value chain of Power Sector’. This notification first clarified ESS as part of the ‘power system’ as defined under Section 2(50) of the Electricity Act, 2003, that a standalone ESS is a delicensed activity, and outlined its legal status and usage. This notification was followed by issuance of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which introduced Rule 18.

The Draft Rules introduce revisions in terms of the utility and beneficiaries of the storage system. The Draft Rules have been issued to invite comments and suggestions from the industry.

Key proposed changes

ESS will be utilised either as an independent ESS or, as a part of the generation, transmission or distribution. Reference to the ESS as a ‘network asset’ will be omitted.
ESS may be developed, owned, leased or operated by a generating company or a transmission licensee or a distribution licensee, or a consumer, or a system operator or an independent energy storage service provider.
The legal status of an ESS will be the same as that of the owner. However, if such an ESS is not co-located with, but owned and operated by, the generating station or distribution licensee or consumer, the legal status will still be that of the owner but for the purpose of scheduling and dispatch and other matters it will be treated at par with a separate storage element.
The owner or developer of the ESS will have an option to sell or lease or rent out the storage space in whole or in part to any consumer or utility engaged in generation or transmission or distribution; or to a Load Despatch Centre.

Conclusion

ESS is vital for integrating the large volumes of renewable energy penetrating in India’s energy mix and will play a significant role in grid balancing and providing fast response/ramping up or down, thereby enabling flexibility in system operation. The Draft Rules provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the growing dimensions and opportunities related to ESS. Particularly, the proposal to allow consumers to develop, own or operate ESS, or avail energy storage facilities at their end, would represent a major change in how energy storage is integrated into the power sector landscape. It will foster greater decentralisation and empower demand-side participation in energy markets.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Vishnu Sudarsan
Partner

Sugandha Somani Gopal
Partner

Mehar Vasant
Senior Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

Tags Draft Amendment, Electricity Rules 2025, Energy Storage, ESS Policy, Grid Balancing, JSA News, Leading Law Firm, Leading Lawyer, Legal Updates, MoP India, Power Sector Reforms, Renewable Integration

JSA Prism | Energy | July 2025

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Draft regulations on battery energy storage systems released by the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (“APERC”) on June 30, 2025, released the draft APERC [Planning, Procurement, Deployment, and Utilisation of Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)] Regulations, 2025 (“Draft BESS Regulations”). The Draft BESS Regulations aim to establish a comprehensive framework for the deployment, ownership, and operation of Battery Energy Storage Systems (“BESS”) in the state of Andhra Pradesh, aligned with national guidelines and policies, including the 2022 Guidelines and the National Framework for Energy Storage Systems, 2023 released by the Ministry of Power. The Draft BESS Regulations seek to catalyse private investment, promote grid stability, and enable market-based participation in ancillary services. Comments and suggestions on the draft may be submitted to APERC on or before July 21, 2025.

Salient features

Enabling BESS across the value chain: BESS may be developed and owned by distribution and transmission licensees, generating companies, renewable energy developers, aggregators, system operators, independent service providers or any other third-party investors. The systems may be deployed as standalone installations, co-located with generation sources, embedded within network infrastructure, or installed behind the meter at the consumer end.
BESS planning and procurement criteria: Distribution and transmission licensees are required to determine BESS locations in the distribution or transmission system based on reverse power flow at substations and should also seek prior approval from the APERC for procurement. While a minimum project size of 1 MW (one megawatt) and above (with at least 4 (four) hour energy storage) is prescribed, exemptions are provided for BESS set up at the distribution transformer level to support local solar rooftop generation.
Third-party and open access participation enabled: The draft regulations expressly allow renewable energy developers, including independent power producers (IPPs), to set up BESS either at the generation site or separately for use by their consumers through open access. However, the draft does not clearly address whether BESS can be independently used by third-party consumers, leaving ambiguity on this aspect.
Participation in ancillary service markets: BESS is eligible to provide frequency regulation (primary, secondary, and tertiary), spinning and non-spinning reserves, voltage support, and black start services. Aggregators may combine BESS capacity from multiple sites to offer grid services, subject to registration and approval by the State Load Despatch Centre (“SLDC”).
Market and tariff framework: Licensee-owned BESS assets will be subject to cost recovery through tariff determination by APERC, based on prudent investment norms. BESS services procured from private developers must follow competitive bidding. For market-linked services, compensation will be based on market-clearing prices or such other mechanism as approved by APERC.
Role of utilities in BESS planning: The Draft BESS Regulations require distribution licensees to include BESS in their resource planning and submit investment proposals to the Commission. However, it does not explicitly require utilities to factor BESS into demand forecasting, load dispatch planning, or renewable energy integration strategies, which may warrant further regulatory clarity.
Operational framework and governance: SLDC is designated as the nodal agency for registering BESS and aggregators, determining ancillary service requirements, scheduling and dispatch, and settlement. SLDC must also publish annual and real-time estimates of ancillary service requirements and monitor key performance indicators including state of charge (SoC), efficiency, response time, and availability.
Consumer and prosumer participation: Consumers and prosumers not covered under net metering or billing may install behind-the-meter BESS without the prior approval of the Distribution Company (“DISCOM”), subject to compliance with the technical standards prescribed by the Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”). For systems integrated with the grid, inspection and certification by the concerned DISCOM or transmission licensee is required. Standalone systems are exempt from this requirement.
Compliance and oversight: APERC will approve BESS procurement proposals, investment and tariff filings, SLDC procedures for ancillary services, eligibility criteria for aggregators, and standard agreement formats. The APERC is also empowered to issue directions, amend provisions, relax regulations, and remove implementation difficulties as needed.
Technical and performance oversight: All BESS installations must conform to technical standards specified by the CEA and comply with specifications approved by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. BESS providers must also submit periodic operational data to the SLDC and the APERC in the formats prescribed by the SLDC.

Conclusion

The Draft BESS Regulations represent a crucial step towards operationalising Andhra Pradesh’s ambitious clean energy goals under its 2024 Integrated Clean Energy Policy. By enabling both centralised and decentralised storage, the framework supports renewable energy integration, enhances grid reliability, and opens new avenues for market participation in ancillary services. Regulatory certainty and competitive procurement models aim to attract private investment and drive innovation. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage in the consultation process and assess opportunities for deployment and participation across the electricity value chain.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Vishnu Sudarsan
Partner

Sugandha Somani Gopal
Partner