Petition for Truing up and determination of transmission tariff for Raipur Pooling Station (Powergrid) for Raipur PS (Powergrid)-Rajnandgaon for Chhattisgarh IPPs (Part-B)” in the Western Region – EQ

Summary:

—

### **1. Background**

* The petition is before the **Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC)** and pertains to **truing-up of transmission tariff for the 2014–19 period** and **determination of tariff for the 2019–24 period**.
* The assets involved are **two 765 kV line bays at the 765/400 kV Raipur Pooling Station (Powergrid)** associated with the **Raipur PS – Rajnandgaon (TBCB) 765 kV Double Circuit line** under the **Additional System Strengthening Scheme for Chhattisgarh IPPs (Part-B)** in the Western Region.

### **2. Statutory & Regulatory Context**

* The petition is being examined under CERC’s tariff determination and truing-up framework applicable to interstate transmission systems.
* The matter has been **reopened pursuant to the Commission’s order dated 15.01.2024** in Review Petition No. 51/RP/2022, limited to a specific issue of cost sharing.

### **3. Parties Involved**

* **Petitioner:** Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL)
* **Respondents:** Madhya Pradesh Power Management Corporation Limited (MPPMCL) and others
* **Key Contesting Respondent:** RRWTL

### **4. Hearing Details**

* **Date of Hearing:** 20 November 2025
* **Bench:** Chairperson and three Members of CERC
* Legal counsels and officials represented **PGCIL and RRWTL**.

### **5. Submissions by the Petitioner**

* PGCIL submitted that the petition was reopened **only on the limited issue of sharing transmission charges** for the **mismatch period from 30.11.2018 to 30.03.2019**.
* It was stated that **multiple opportunities** had already been provided to RRWTL to present its arguments on the matter.

### **6. Submissions by the Respondent (RRWTL)**

* RRWTL contended that it is **not liable to pay transmission charges** for the said mismatch period.
* The primary dispute centers on **allocation of transmission charges during the interim operational phase**.

### **7. Directions of the Commission**

* After hearing the parties, the Commission directed that the matter be **listed for further hearing on 11 December 2025**.

### **8. Business & Regulatory Implications**

* The final decision will determine **liability for transmission charges during the mismatch period**, impacting cost recovery for PGCIL.
* The outcome may influence **future interpretations of transmission charge sharing** in cases of partial or delayed system alignment.
* Distribution utilities and transmission service providers are closely impacted by the Commission’s ruling on retrospective cost allocation.

### **9. Overall Significance**

* The proceedings underline CERC’s focus on **clarity in transmission charge sharing mechanisms**.
* The case has broader relevance for **TBCB-linked projects and system strengthening schemes**, especially where commissioning timelines overlap or mismatch.

—

For more information please see below link: