The  Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (UPERC) has approved an aggregate revenue requirement (ARR) of approximately ₹59.61 billion (~$630.22 million) and ₹255.41 million (~$2.7 million) for Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corporation (UPPTCL) and Uttar Pradesh State Load Dispatch Centre (UPSLDC), respectively.

It approved an annual performance review (APR) of ₹58.08 billion (~$614.12 million) and ₹481.72 million (~$5.1 million).

UPERC also approved transmission charges of ₹84.4 billion (~$892.34 million) and open access charges of ₹0.3075 (~$0.0033)/kWh for UPPTCL.

The state load dispatch center (SLDC) charges of ₹483.88 million (~$5.11 million) and a capital investment plan of ₹26.25 million (~$277,104.19) were also approved for UPSLDC.

The Commission lowered ARR, APR, and other charges from the petitioners’ request after prudence checks, primarily by reducing expenses that were above the norm.

Background

In November 2025, UPPTCL and UPSLDC filed petitions with the Commission seeking approval of their true-up for FY 2024–25, the APR for FY 2025-26, and the ARR for FY 2026-27.

UPPTCL sought an APR of ₹63.8 billion (~$673.57 million), an ARR of ₹72.76 billion (~$768,12 million), and transmission charges of ₹97.8 billion (~$1.03 billion).

UPSLDC requested an APR of ₹498.25 million (~$5.26 million), an ARR of ₹276.83 million (~$3 million), and SLDC charges of ₹515.01 million (~$5.44 million). It also proposed a capital investment plan of ₹26.25 million (~$277,104.19).

The Commission held technical validation sessions in January 2025 and noted multiple deficiencies and data gaps.

It observed that UPPTCL had not submitted a study assessing the impact of tariff-based competitive bidding (TCBC) for transmission systems of 220 kV and above on transmission losses within the mandated timeline. The Commission directed UPPTCL to explain this delay and submit the report.

For UPSLDC, the Commission highlighted incomplete data and a lack of clarity on financial and operational submissions. It inquired about the status of approved capital expenditure programs for FY 2024-25, detailed depreciation data, and clarification on annual maintenance contract expenses. It also sought justification for employee incentive expenses and details of certified personnel.

The Commission directed UPSLDC to provide clarity on banking and finance charges, as well as the treatment of income tax and return on equity.

The petitioners submitted their responses to the issues highlighted by UPERC. They also submitted responses to the deficiency note issues earlier in December 2025.

Public hearings were held for both petitions in February 2026, and stakeholders were invited to share their comments and suggestions.

In UPPTCL’s public hearing, stakeholders highlighted transmission losses and inquired about ARR components, state transmission utility charges, and the share of TBCB licensees in the state transmission network. They also questioned whether increased capital expenditure (CAPEX) on transmission infrastructure was delivering proportional benefits, particularly in reducing transmission losses and improving efficiency.

For UPSLDC, stakeholders highlighted the lack of transparency in uploading the petition, power generation shutdowns, citing low demand, ARR discrepancies, and the independent status of UPSLDC. The stakeholders sought clarifications for the public availability of the generation shutdown status and employee incentives.

UPPTCL  submitted that transmission losses rose marginally due to the 11% increase in power flow in the transmission system, while transmission network additions were low. The transmission losses depended on loading, power flows, voltage profiles, power generation mix, and operating conditions.

It also stated that the increased CAPEX was for transmission network strengthening, capacity augmentation, and replacing ageing conductors. The claims for ARR were based on multi-year tariff (MYT) regulations, audited accounts, and earlier Commission-approved norms.

On transmission charges, UPPTCL submitted that the increase was mainly due to the new MYT transmission regulations, including higher return on equity and revised operation and maintenance computations.

Commission’s Analysis

The Commission approved lower ARR, APR, and charges after applying prudence checks and tariff regulations. It reduced expenses that were considered higher than the norm, particularly operation and maintenance costs.

For UPPTCL, it observed that the transmission losses were influenced by system loading, power flow, network configuration, and voltage profile.

It acknowledged that UPPTCL engaged consultants to study the impact of 220 kV and above TBCB transmission systems on intra-state transmission losses , directing the petitioner to submit the report within three months.

For UPSLDC, the transmission and SLDC charges were reduced since they were derived from the approved ARR.

The Commission noted that the ARR components were examined through prudence checks under the MYT regulations. UPERC held that the computation norms for the transmission charges did not impose an additional burden on distribution company consumers.

For UPSLDC, the Commission approved ARR and SLDC charges and directed it to improve transparency, ensure the timely availability of petition documents, maintain public access to generation shutdown data, and take steps toward appointing an independent managing director to strengthen its functional independence.

The Commission also approved the full capital investment plan amount proposed by UPSLDC.

This February, UPERC permitted Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam to undertake a pilot demonstration of interstate peer-to-peer trading of renewable energy under the India Energy Stack framework.

Subscribe to Mercom’s real-time Regulatory Updates to ensure you don’t miss any critical updates from the renewable industry.