The General Network Access (GNA) regulations, notified by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) in 2022, mark a significant shift in India’s approach to transmission access. By decoupling connectivity rights from specific geographical locations, the GNA framework allows entities to book injection or drawal capacity across the inter-State transmission system with greater flexibility. This location-agnostic model is designed to enhance renewable energy integration, promote open access, and support the evolution of a unified and efficient national power market. This blog presents a comparative analysis of India’s GNA regime with international practices, highlights its key advantages and challenges, and assesses the stakeholders who stand to gain or lose under the new framework

1. Comparison of India’s GNA with Global Transmission Access Models

The table below compares the major features of India’s GNA framework with those in other countries:

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of GNA

General Network Access (GNA) is a landmark reform introduced to liberalize grid access and enable pan-India transmission flexibility. While it promotes optimization, renewable integration, and open access, it also brings a new set of challenges that must be acknowledged and addressed through regulatory, technical, and commercial measures.

a. Price Discovery Distortion for Location-Constrained Renewables:

Solar and wind generation are inherently site-specific. Uniform GNA-based access fails to reflect locational costs and grid constraints, leading to distorted market signals and inefficient siting of projects. This can result in artificially low prices in power markets and affect project viability.

b. Absence of Locational Marginal Pricing (LMP):

The lack of nodal or zonal pricing mechanisms means that transmission congestion and regional supply-demand imbalances are not reflected in market prices. This reduces transparency and misguides investment decisions.

c. Increased Congestion and Transmission Planning Complexity:

While GNA provides access flexibility, it does not guarantee physical availability of transmission capacity. Increased flow across long distances can lead to corridor congestion, complicating reactive power management, redundancy planning, and system stability.

d. Gap Between Contracted GNA and Physical Deliverability:

Entities may have GNA rights, but actual power flow can still be restricted due to real-time congestion or outages. This mismatch can disrupt power supply contracts and reduce reliability for both generators and consumers.

e. Regulatory and Commercial Uncertainty:

GNA is still evolving in terms of operational rules, transferability, secondary trading, and withdrawal rights. Without a clear regulatory roadmap, there is potential for market manipulation, hoarding, and disputes.

f. Inequitable Cost Allocation:

Pan-India access may lead to socialization of high-cost transmission projects, creating cross-subsidy burdens. Consumers closer to generation centres may subsidize those far away, which can be perceived as unfair and inefficient.

g. Operational Burden on Grid Operators (SLDCs/RLDCs):

With national-level capacity booking, state and regional operators face increased complexity in coordinating schedules, forecasting load flows, and managing contingencies. Enhanced real-time tools and coordination protocols are needed.

h. Impact on Legacy PPA and Transmission Contracts:

Some existing long-term contracts are  tied to point-to-point connectivity. Transitioning to GNA may create inconsistencies, requiring renegotiation and legal clarity on existing obligations.

i. Higher Curtailment Risk for RE Developers:

Without site-specific evacuation guarantees, RE projects face higher curtailment risk under GNA—especially during grid congestion or peak renewable generation hours. This affects financial returns and increases risk premiums.

j. Grid Stability and Inertia Challenges:

Flexible power flows across vast distances may lead to issues in voltage control, inertia adequacy, and system fault responses. This necessitates investments in advanced technologies such as battery storage, synthetic inertia, and flexible AC transmission systems.

Advantages

-De-links connectivity from project location, enhancing flexibility

- Reduces stranded transmission capacity and improves asset utilization.

- Promotes national-level renewable power development.

- Supports Green Open Access and cross-regional power sourcing.

- Encourages market-based procurement and competition.

- Facilitates integration of hybrid and storage-backed projects.

Disadvantages

- No locational marginal pricing leads to inefficient siting.

- Congestion risks are not reflected in prices.

- Mismatch between contracted GNA and physical deliverability.

- Regulatory uncertainty in rights trading, withdrawal, and transition.

- High curtailment risk for RE projects without firm evacuation rights.

- Cost socialization burdens low-distance consumers unfairly.

- Operational complexity for SLDCs and RLDCs.

3. Stakeholder Impact: Winners and Losers

Winners Under GNA

a)     Renewable Energy Developers

• Can book transmission regardless of site location.

• Better access to national markets and green energy corridors.

• Opportunity for hybrid and storage-linked projects.

b)     Open Access C&I Consumers

• Greater sourcing flexibility.

• Access to cheaper RE and diversified portfolios.

c)      Power Traders & Aggregators

• Portfolio optimization and trading potential.

• Secondary rights (once defined) will open new markets.

d)     Transmission Developers

• Higher utilization and cost recovery.

• Justification for new line approvals.

e)     SLDCs/RLDCs (limited benefit)

• Access to broader generation pool.

Losers Under GNA

a)     Small or Site-Tied RE Developers

• Curtailment risk due to congestion.

• No location-based compensation or guarantees.

b)     Consumers near Generation Hubs

• Unfair cost socialization.

• No locational tariff relief.

c)      Legacy PPA Holders

• Contracts misaligned with GNA structure.

• Legal uncertainty in migration.

d)     State Load Dispatch Centres (SLDCs)

• Higher real-time operational complexity.

• Need for advanced forecasting and scheduling tools.

e)     DISCOMs with Fixed PPAs

• Load migration under open access.

• Stranded costs and under-recovery.

f)       Low-demand State Consumers

• Bear costs of national expansion.

• Limited proportional benefits.

4. Conclusion

India’s GNA framework is a bold and transformative reform that seeks to make transmission access more flexible, efficient, and market friendly. By moving away from rigid, geography-bound connectivity, GNA aligns India’s power sector with modern, global best practices. However, its success depends on resolving regulatory uncertainties, addressing pricing inefficiencies, and investing in supportive technologies. With the right enablers, GNA can become a cornerstone of India's clean energy future—supporting open access, lowering costs, and enabling true nationwide power market integration.