Energy wheeling agreements must provide 75% tariff payment for surplus solar energy under the applicable tariff order.

The petitioner, a solar power generator, challenged a clause in its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 29 August 2025 under which surplus energy remaining at the end of the billing period would lapse.

It sought revision of the agreement to conform to Clause 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, and payment for unutilised surplus energy.

The parties accepted that the issue was covered by earlier High Court decisions directing amendment of similar agreements.

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

1. Whether the respondents should be directed to revise the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate the requirements of Clause 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

2. Whether implementation of that direction should await the outcome of the pending APTEL appeal.

Clause 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, dated 16 October 2020, governed payment for excess energy: the generator is entitled to 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff is fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

In M.P. No. 47 of 2021, the Commission held that a contractual clause inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 and Regulation 7 of the Power Procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008 could not stand, and set out the applicable payment principle.

The High Court followed its earlier decisions directing amendment of inconsistent wheeling-agreement clauses.

The Court treated the dispute as covered by its earlier decisions, which had required amendment of similar agreements to reflect Clause 5.5.8. It therefore directed the respondents to revise the petitioner’s agreement on the same basis.

Although the respondents sought to make compliance dependent on the pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that they need not await its outcome; the authorities could proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.

Any amount payable to the petitioner following that modification was to be settled within a further eight weeks.

Compliance was not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, though the authorities could act in accordance with law after its decision.

No costs were awarded.