Petition with CERC (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Transmission License and other related matters) Regulations to SR WR Power Transmission Ltd – EQ
Summary:
—
#### 1. Case Overview & Legal Framework
– **Petition No.:** 884/AT/2025
– **Petitioner:** SR WR Power Transmission Limited (SWPTL) – a 100% wholly-owned subsidiary of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited.
– **Respondents:** Central Transmission Utility of India Limited (CTUIL) and Anr.
– **Subject of Petition:** An application under **Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003**, seeking the adoption of transmission charges for a transmission system being established by the Petitioner. Section 63 empowers the CERC to adopt tariffs for transmission projects that are discovered through a transparent competitive bidding process.
– **Nature of the Project:** The Petitioner is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) likely set up to implement a specific inter-state transmission system project awarded through the Tariff-Based Competitive Bidding (TBCB) process.
#### 2. Key Issue Raised by Respondent (TNPDCL)
– **The Objection:** During the hearing, the representative of **Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited (TNPDCL)** raised a significant technical issue. The dispute centers on whether the subject transmission system, or a component of it, should be classified as a **”National Component”** or a **”Regional Component”** .
– **Why This Matters:** This classification has direct financial implications for distribution companies like TNPDCL. The “Sharing Regulations” (the CERC (Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges and Losses) Regulations) dictate how the cost of the inter-state transmission system is allocated among all its beneficiaries.
– A **”National Component”** is socialized across all users in the country.
– A **”Regional Component”** is socialized only within a specific region (e.g., the Southern Region).
– **TNPDCL’s Stance:** They requested that CTUIL be directed to file a reply clarifying this classification, as it directly impacts the allocation of charges they would have to bear.
#### 3. Petitioner’s (SWPTL) Response
– SWPTL’s representative clarified that they were not involved in the project planning phase.
– They submitted that their petition is based strictly on the bidding documents. These documents specify that transmission charges shall be recovered “in terms of the extant Sharing Regulations,” which is the standard, prevailing practice for such projects. Their stance is that they are following the established procedure.
#### 4. Commission’s Directives & Next Steps
– Recognizing the need for clarification on the technical point raised by TNPDCL, the Commission permitted **CTUIL** (the planning and nodal agency) to file its reply.
– **Timeline:** CTUIL must file its reply within **one week**.
– **Next Hearing:** The petition will be listed again for hearing on **February 24, 2026**.
—
For more information please see below link:
