CERC Denies Azure Petition to Extend Deadline, LTA Start Date & Waive Transmission Fees

Azure Power and its subsidiaries Azure Power Maple, Azure Power Forty-Three, and Azure Power Forty-One filed a petition with the CERC asking for an extension of the long-term access (LTA) start date, a waiver of transmission fees, and postponement of the deadline for finishing the pooling substation and dedicated transmission line. However, the CERC has rejected the petition. 

The company’s subsidiaries were given Long Term Access with a total capacity of 1,200 MW for the delivery of electricity produced by its three power plants, centered in districts of Rajasthan, having 600 MW, 300 MW, and 300 MW capacities.

The company had submitted a request to the Commission asking it to request an extension for the dedicated transmission line and pooling substation completion deadline from Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, and Powergrid Khetri Transmission Limited. 

Azure Power has also asked the Ministry of Power’s help in order to have the ISTS fees and losses waived for the period of time between the LTA operationalization date and the PPA SCOD.

In the appeal, it was also asked for Azure Power India Private’s Long Term Access start date to be extended along with the operationalization date for all projects.

According to the CERC, as per the legislative framework and the Sharing of Inter-State Transmission Charges and Losses Regulations, 2020 (2020 Sharing Regulations), the companies and their subsidiaries are required to pay transmission fees and cannot receive an exemption. 

If Azure Power is given a waiver from transmission fees, the common pool (PoC) will need to be adjusted. As a result, the interests of other parties may have to bear the brunt of the fees that the company is required to pay.

Furthermore, it noted that there is no connection between the project SCOD and the LTA agreement’s start date in accordance with the LTA contract. Therefore, the Commission came to the conclusion that the firm’s argument is unfounded.