Petition of the CERC (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) and (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations for truing-up and determination of tariff of Srinagar PH Line (Deemed ISTS) – EQ
Summary:
—-
#### 1. Case Background and Legal Context
– **Petitioner:** Power Transmission Corporation of Uttarakhand Limited (PTCUL), the state transmission utility.
– **Respondents:** Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (PGCIL) and other stakeholders.
– **Subject Asset:** The petition concerns the **400 kV Srinagar – Srinagar PH Transmission Line**, which is part of the “UITP Scheme” and is considered a Deemed Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS).
– **Regulatory Framework:** The petition is filed under Sections 61, 62, 79(1)(c), and 79(1)(d) of the Electricity Act, 2003. These sections deal with tariff principles and the Commission’s role in determining terms and conditions of tariff.
– **Core Purpose:** The petition has two main objectives:
1. **”True-up” for Past Period:** To get the Commission’s approval for the actual capital expenditure incurred from the date of commercial operation (COD) of the line up to the financial year 2018-19.
2. **Tariff Determination for 2019-24:** To establish the final tariff for the transmission line for the subsequent control period (2019-24).
#### 2. Key Submissions by the Petitioner (PTCUL)
– **Justification for Delays:** The counsel for PTCUL informed the Commission that they have provided detailed justifications for the project delays, which were attributed to delays in obtaining forest clearances and issues related to Right of Way (RoW). This submission was made in compliance with a previous CERC order dated June 13, 2021, in Petition No. 81/TT/2016.
– **Capital Expenditure Claim:** PTCUL submitted that the entire capital expenditure claimed for the period, including any Additional Capital Expenditure (ACE), is fully supported and certified by an independent Auditor’s Certificate. They requested the Commission to consider this certified expenditure for the true-up.
#### 3. Status of Respondents
– The record notes that none of the Respondents (including PGCIL) have filed their replies to the petition, despite having been served notice. This indicates they either chose not to contest or were not ready with their response at this stage.
#### 4. Directives Issued by the Commission
After hearing the arguments, the CERC bench directed PTCUL to provide additional, specific information to support its claim. This information must be submitted **on affidavit** (making it a sworn, legally binding statement) within four weeks:
1. **Clarification on ACE:** PTCUL must provide justification for claiming a specific expenditure of **₹180.35 lakh** against “PMO ADB” as Additional Capital Expenditure for the 2014-19 tariff period.
2. **Liability Flow Statement:** PTCUL must submit a “Liability Flow Statement” for both the 2014-19 and 2019-24 tariff periods. This document likely details the sources of funds, payment schedules, and outstanding liabilities related to the project.
—-
For more information please see below link:
