Pending appeal, distribution authorities must revise wheeling agreements to conform with the applicable solar tariff order.

The petitioner sought revision of the Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 30 March 2026 concerning its solar power generator, SPG No. 059514520012.

It contended that the agreement’s provision concerning surplus solar energy was inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, and sought payment for unutilised surplus energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff.

Both sides submitted that the issue was covered by earlier orders of the High Court.

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

Whether the relevant clause in the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement should be revised to conform with Clause 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

Whether payment of amounts due for surplus energy should be made without awaiting the outcome of the appeal pending before APTEL.

Clause 5.5.8 of the Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, read with the Commission’s order dated 11 May 2023 in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, entitles a generator to payment for energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff has been fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding; denial may be considered in specified circumstances involving directions of the SLDC or grid security, subject to notice and a fair hearing.

The Court also relied on its earlier decisions in W.P. Nos. 31457 of 2025 and 49777 of 2025, which followed the order in W.P. No. 14115 of 2025 and directed revision of inconsistent agreement clauses.

The Court treated the petitioner’s case as governed by its earlier decisions, which had required agreement clauses inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 to be revised.

It therefore directed the relevant clause to be brought into conformity with the tariff order.

Although the respondents requested that compliance await the pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that compliance need not be postponed; the authorities may proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decides the matter.

Any amount found payable to the petitioner is to be settled within eight weeks after the modification.

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

No costs were ordered.