Petition for the determination of transmission tariff for “Transmission Network Expansion in Gujarat to increase ATC from ISTS, Part-B” in the Western Region – EQ
Summary:
—
### **1. Nature of the Petition**
– **Petitioner:** Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL)
– **Respondents:** Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited (MPPMCL) and 6 Others (including MSEDCL)
– **Subject:** Determination of **transmission tariff for the 2024–29 tariff period** for assets under the project **”Transmission Network Expansion in Gujarat to increase ATC from ISTS, Part-B”** in the Western Region.
—
### **2. Hearing Proceedings**
– **Bench Present:**
– Shri Jishnu Barua (Chairperson)
– Shri Ramesh Babu V. (Member)
– Shri Harish Dudani (Member)
– Shri Ravinder Singh Dhillon (Member)
– **Representation:**
– **PGCIL:** Large delegation including Shri Zafrul Hassan and multiple representatives/advocates.
– **Respondents:** MSEDCL (Ms. Nishtha Goel) and MPPMCL (Shri Saurabh Mishra, Shri Kailash Jain, Ms. Jyotsna Agnihotri Rathore).
—
### **3. Key Submissions & Requests**
– **PGCIL’s Submission:** Confirmed that all requisite information and affidavits have been filed.
– **Respondents’ Requests:**
– **MPPMCL (Respondent No.1):** Requested **reopening of the e-filing portal** to submit its reply.
– **MSEDCL (Respondent No.2):** Sought **two weeks’ time** to file a reply.
—
### **4. Commission’s Directions**
1. **To Respondents (including MSEDCL & MPPMCL):**
– File respective replies **within two weeks**.
– Provide advance copy to PGCIL.
– PGCIL may file a rejoinder **within one week** thereafter.
2. **To CTUIL (Central Transmission Utility of India Ltd.):**
– File an affidavit **within two weeks** providing clarity on:
– **a)** Whether completion/availability of **pre-required transmission elements** was a prerequisite for claiming **deemed Commercial Operation Date (COD)** of the asset.
– **b)** The **basis for approving deemed COD** without commissioning of the **765 kV Napsari Substation**.
– **c)** Whether the transmission assets can serve their **intended purpose** without the commissioning of:
– 765 kV Napsari (New) – Padghe line
– 765 kV line bays at Napsari (New)
– 765 kV ICT bays at Napsari Substation (New)
—
### **5. Next Steps & Timeline**
– **Next Hearing Date:** **March 19, 2026**
– **Immediate Actions:**
– Replies from respondents due **within two weeks** from January 13, 2026.
– CTUIL’s affidavit due **within two weeks**.
– PGCIL’s rejoinder due **within one week** after receiving replies.
—
### **6. Business & Regulatory Implications**
– **Tariff Approval at Stake:** PGCIL seeks tariff certainty for a major interstate transmission project in Gujarat. Approval impacts revenue recovery and project viability.
– **Critical Technical & Legal Issue:** The Commission is scrutinizing the **validity of the deemed COD**—a key determinant for tariff commencement. If associated infrastructure (Napsari substation, lines, bays) is not operational, the basis for charging tariffs may be contested.
– **CTUIL’s Role Under Scrutiny:** CTUIL, as the planning and approval authority, must justify its decision to grant deemed COD, highlighting the link between **project commissioning milestones and tariff eligibility**.
– **Respondents’ Strategy:** MSEDCL and MPPMCL (likely power distribution utilities) are seeking time to challenge the tariff, possibly on grounds of **premature tariff claims or asset readiness**.
—
For more information please see below link:
