Wheeling agreements must incorporate tariff-order protections for surplus solar energy despite a pending appeal.

The petitioner, a solar power generator, challenged paragraph 6 on page 10 of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 30 March 2026, concerning SPG No. 029534170006.

It sought alignment of the agreement with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9/2020, and payment for unutilised surplus energy from 24 June 2025 at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated to be ₹3.04 per unit.

By consent, the Court took up the petition for final disposal at the admission stage.

The parties submitted that the issue was covered by earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 31457 of 2025 and 49777 of 2025.

Whether the respondents should revise the relevant clause of the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9/2020.

Whether amounts payable for unutilised surplus energy should be settled following the revision of the agreement, notwithstanding the pending appeal before APTEL.

The Court applied paragraph 5.5.8 of TNERC Solar Tariff Order No. 9/2020, which, as set out in the proceedings, entitles a generator to payment for excess energy at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff is fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

It also relied on TNERC’s order in M.P. No. 47 of 2021 dated 11 May 2023, which held that an inconsistent Energy Wheeling Agreement clause was contrary to paragraph 5.5.8 and Regulation 7 of the Power Procurement from New and Renewable Sources of Energy Regulations, 2008; that order provided for payment at the prescribed 75% rate, subject to exceptions including injections contrary to SLDC directions or jeopardising grid security, with notice and a fair hearing before denial.

Following the earlier writ orders, the Court directed contractual alignment with the tariff order, while preserving the authorities’ ability to act in accordance with law after APTEL’s decision.

The Court treated the petitioner’s dispute as covered by its earlier decisions, which had directed revision of agreements containing clauses inconsistent with paragraph 5.5.8 of the tariff order.

It therefore ordered the respondents to revise the petitioner’s agreement and settle any amount payable under the modified agreement.

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

Any amount payable to the petitioner is to be settled within eight weeks thereafter.

Compliance is not to be deferred pending APTEL’s decision, though the authorities may act in accordance with law following that decision.

No costs were awarded.