Utilities must revise wheeling agreements to conform with tariff orders despite a pending appeal.

The petitioners, solar-energy generators, challenged provisions in their respective 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, dated 16 October 2020.

They sought revision of the relevant clauses and payment for unutilised surplus solar energy.

The Court was informed that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing revision of inconsistent agreement clauses and payment of sums due.

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

1. Whether the relevant Energy Wheeling Agreement clauses should be revised to conform with paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

2. Whether amounts payable for unutilised surplus solar energy should be settled in accordance with the earlier directions, notwithstanding the pending APTEL appeal.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue appropriate writs, including mandamus, to enforce applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of TNERC’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, read with Regulation 7 of the Power Procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008, governs payment for excess energy; TNERC had held that payment was to be made at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission, or, where no tariff was fixed, at 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding, subject to the stated exceptions.

The Court followed its earlier orders directing that inconsistent agreement clauses be revised to incorporate the tariff-order provision and that amounts due be paid within the specified period.

The Court treated the dispute as covered by its earlier decisions, which had relied on TNERC’s finding that agreement terms inconsistent with paragraph 5.5.8 could not displace the applicable tariff-order provision.

It therefore directed revision of the relevant clauses and settlement of amounts due on the same terms.

Although an appeal was pending before APTEL, the Court clarified that compliance with its directions need not await the appeal’s outcome; the authorities could act in accordance with law after APTEL decided the matter.

Respondents 3 and 4 were directed to revise the relevant agreement clauses to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order within six weeks from uploading of the web copy, and to settle any amount due within eight weeks thereafter.

Compliance was not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, without prejudice to the authorities’ ability to proceed in accordance with law after its decision.

No costs were ordered.