Petition for the determination-cum-truing up of the transmission tariff for Bikaner with “Transmission System for the Evacuation of Power from REZ in Rajasthan (20 GW) under Phase III – Part J” – EQ

Summary:

—-

**1. Case Overview**

– **Petitioner:** Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) in all cases.
– **Matters Heard:** Six petitions (Nos. 380, 389, 398, 743, 746, and 766) concerning transmission systems in the Northern, Southern, Eastern, and Western Regions.
– **Purpose of Petitions:** The core purpose across all petitions is the regulatory approval of transmission tariffs. This involves two key processes for each asset:
1. **Truing up** of the tariff for the 2019-24 period (adjusting approved tariffs based on actual incurred costs).
2. **Determination** of the new tariff for the upcoming 2024-29 period.
– **Respondents:** Various State Power Distribution Companies (Discoms) and beneficiaries, including Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation (TANGEDCO/TNPDL), Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Ltd. (MPPMCL), and Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd.
– **Hearing Date:** February 27, 2026 (Virtual Hearing)
– **Next Hearing Date:** April 16, 2026, at 2:30 PM

**2. Key Submissions and Procedural Requests**

During the hearing, the following requests were made:

– **PGCIL (in Petition 389/TT/2024):** Sought **3 weeks** to file a reply to a technical validation letter dated February 6, 2026.
– **PGCIL (in Petition 743/TT/2025):** Sought **4 weeks** to file additional information.
– **MPPMCL (Respondent in Petition 766/TT/2025):** Sought **2 weeks** to file its reply to the petition.

**3. Directives Issued by the Commission**

The CERC issued a series of procedural and information-specific directions to move the cases forward.

– **General Procedural Directives:**
– **Notice Issuance:** In Petition No. 380/TT/2024, the Commission directed that notice be issued to the respondents.
– **Filing of Replies:** In all petitions, respondents were directed to file their replies within **two weeks**. PGCIL was granted one week thereafter to file rejoinders.
– **Time Granted:** The requests for additional time from PGCIL (in Petitions 389 and 743) and MPPMCL (in Petition 766) were effectively accommodated within these general timelines.

– **Asset-Specific Information Directives (to be furnished by PGCIL on affidavit within two weeks):**

The Commission’s key focus areas across the petitions include:

– **Financial & Cost Details:**
– Submission of various regulatory forms (Form-5, 7B, 9C, 12, 13) in specified formats, particularly **Excel format with proper linkages**.
– Detailed breakdowns of **Interest During Construction (IDC)** , including interest rates considered for each loan and linked IDC statements.
– Reconciliation of costs, such as Plant and Machinery costs between Form-5 and Form-13 (Petition 398).

– **Project Execution & Time Overruns:**
– **Status of Works:** Clarification on whether reconductoring/reconditioning works are completed, including dates of completion and details of de-capitalization (Petitions 380, 743).
– **Time Overrun Justification:** Detailed, reason-wise bifurcation of time overruns (e.g., denial of PTW, RoW issues, rain, COVID-19) with supporting documents, rather than collective justifications (Petition 380).
– **Revised Cost Estimates (RCE):** Submission of RCE where there is a cost overrun compared to the original FR apportioned cost (Petition 380).

– **Technical & Operational Details:**
– Clarification from CTUIL on whether the implementation timeline for the asset in Petition 398 has been revised.
– Details on connectivity to Renewable Energy (RE) generators for the Bikaner asset (Petition 380).
– Documentary evidence for Right of Way (RoW) compensation claimed (Petition 743).

**4. Business Implications for Stakeholders**

– **For PGCIL:** The Commission is demanding a high level of granularity and justification for all costs, especially those related to time overruns, IDC, and additional capital expenditure (ACE). The requirement for data in “linked Excel” format indicates a move towards more rigorous, auditable digital scrutiny. PGCIL must provide robust, well-documented evidence to avoid disallowance of costs, which would directly impact its revenue.
– **For Respondent Discoms (e.g., TANGEDCO, MPPMCL):** The detailed information requested by the CERC will provide them with greater transparency into PGCIL’s cost structure. This empowers them to file more informed replies and challenge any imprudent expenditures that would ultimately be passed on to consumers through higher tariffs. Their active participation (or lack thereof) in filing replies within the two-week window will influence the final tariff determination.
– **Overall Significance:** This proceeding demonstrates the CERC’s proactive and detailed approach to tariff regulation. By scrutinizing everything from high-level cost estimates down to daily interest rate calculations and reasons for project delays, the Commission aims to ensure that only prudent and justified costs are recovered through transmission charges. This protects the interests of electricity consumers while ensuring a fair return for the transmission utility, PGCIL.

—-

For more information please see below link: