Power Outage in Erebuni Damages Equipment, Leaves Residents Without Heating: Danielyan

In December 2025, on the eve of the New Year, I submitted a written request to the Public Services Regulatory Commission of Armenia regarding the power supply interruption that occurred in the Erebuni administrative district, trying to clarify what compensation is being planned for citizens who remained without electricity for several days. This was stated by Garnik Danielyan, a member of the 'Armenia' faction in the National Assembly.

“During December and January, I received numerous reports indicating that household appliances of our citizens were rendered inoperative due to the power outage, and food spoiled. Residents left without electricity, including thousands of children, were deprived of heating for days,” he wrote.

The response letter indicated that according to the explanations provided by the Armenian Electric Networks LLC, due to an accident at the 'Vardashen' 110/35/6 kV substation on December 28, 2025, 51,000 consumers in the Erebuni community experienced a power outage. Among them, the electricity supply for around 40,000 was restored within three hours via load shedding, while no more than 11,000 consumers had their power restored 52 hours after the accident.

This immediately raises the question of what data the Electric Networks provided to the Regulatory Commission, and what the mention of 52 hours refers to, given that the Erebuni community was largely without electricity for 3-4 days, exceeding 72 hours. Is the indicated figure of 11,000 accurate in this case?

According to Article 135, Clause 2 of the Rules of the Electric Distribution Company, in the event of a power supply interruption caused by an accident, the distributor is OBLIGED to restore it no later than three hours from the moment of interruption within the administrative boundaries of the urban community. However, the Regulatory Commission claims in its response letter that for the aforementioned 11,000 consumers, the restoration work has been carried out in violation of the requirements of Article 135, and that the penalty stipulated by