Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision on CERC Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) Interpretation

The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding the interpretation of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) of the CERC Regulations, 2001. Deviations within the 4.8% to 7.2% range in the escalation factor for O&M expenses should be absorbed by utilities/beneficiaries, while deviations beyond this range should be adjusted based on the actual escalation factor. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the regulation should be interpreted as written and rejecting arguments for a broader interpretation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms & Conditions of Tariff) Regulation, 2001.
2. Calculation of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) expenses and escalation factors.
3. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's order setting aside CERC's decisions.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv):
The primary issue in these appeals is the interpretation of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) of the CERC Regulations, 2001. The clause specifies that an escalation factor of 6% per annum shall be used to revise the base figure of O&M expenses. Deviations within 20% of this 6% (i.e., between 4.8% and 7.2%) should be absorbed by the utilities/beneficiaries. Deviations beyond this range should be adjusted based on the actual escalation factor.

2. Calculation of O&M Expenses and Escalation Factors:
The National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) argued that only deviations beyond the 4.8% to 7.2% range should be considered for adjustment. For example, if the escalation went to 4%, only the 0.8% deviation should be adjusted. Conversely, the utilities argued that the entire deviation from the standard 6% should be considered. The CERC initially held that O&M expenses should be calculated using the actual escalation factor, not just the marginal adjusted factor.

3. Validity of the Appellate Tribunal's Order:
The Appellate Tribunal set aside the CERC's orders, interpreting that deviations beyond the 4.8% to 7.2% range should be adjusted based on the actual escalation factor. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, stating that the language of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) is clear and unambiguous. The Court emphasized that any deviation beyond the 4.8% to 7.2% range should be adjusted, and deviations within this range should be absorbed by the utilities/beneficiaries. The Court rejected the argument that the full deviation from the 6% standard should be adjusted, affirming the Appellate Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming that Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) should be interpreted literally. Deviations within the 4.8% to 7.2% range are to be absorbed by the utilities/beneficiaries, and only deviations beyond this range should be adjusted based on the actual escalation factor. The Court found no merit in the arguments for a broader interpretation and upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision.

---