Energy wheeling agreements must incorporate the tariff order’s 75% payment rule for surplus solar energy.

The petitioners, solar power generators, challenged clauses in their Energy Wheeling Agreements that they said were inconsistent with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

They sought revised agreements and payment for unutilised surplus solar energy at 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding, stated to be Rs. 3.04 per unit.

The parties informed the Court that the issue was covered by earlier orders directing amendment of similar agreements in accordance with paragraph 5.5.8.

The respondents also submitted that an appeal against the Commission’s order was pending before APTEL.

1. Whether respondents 2 to 4 should revise the relevant clauses in the petitioners’ Energy Wheeling Agreements to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

2. Whether compliance with that direction should await the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, dated 16 October 2020, governed payment for unutilised surplus solar energy.

In M.P. No. 47 of 2021, the Commission held that payment for energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit was due at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission—or, where no tariff had been fixed, at 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding; denial on grid-security grounds required due notice and a fair hearing.

The Court also followed its earlier decisions directing the relevant agreement clauses to be revised in line with the tariff order.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court directed implementation without requiring the parties to await the pending APTEL appeal, while leaving the authorities free to act in accordance with law after that appeal is decided.

The Court treated the petitioners’ claims as covered by its earlier decisions concerning similar agreement terms and paragraph 5.5.8.

It therefore directed respondents 2 to 4 to revise the relevant clauses consistently with that tariff-order provision.

Although the respondents relied on the pending APTEL appeal, the Court concluded that the required compliance need not be deferred; the appeal’s eventual outcome could be addressed by the authorities in accordance with law.

Any amount payable to the petitioners must be settled within eight weeks thereafter.

Compliance is not to await the APTEL decision, but the authorities may proceed in accordance with law once that decision is delivered.

No costs were ordered.