Wheeling agreements must incorporate tariff-order surplus-energy compensation provisions notwithstanding a pending appeal.

The petitioner sought revision of Clause 9 of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 2 May 2026, contending that it was inconsistent with Clause 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

It also sought payment for unutilised surplus solar energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff, stated to be ₹3.04 per unit.

The parties informed the Court that the issue was covered by earlier writ orders directing revision of inconsistent agreement clauses and settlement of amounts due under the tariff order.

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

Whether respondents 2 to 4 should be directed to revise the relevant clause of the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to incorporate Clause 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020.

Whether amounts payable for surplus solar energy should be settled in accordance with the tariff order, notwithstanding the pending APTEL appeal.

Clause 5.5.8 of Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020, read with the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s order in M.P. No. 47 of 2021 dated 11 May 2023, provides that a generator is entitled to payment for energy supplied over and above the sanctioned limit at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff is fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

The Commission also recognised that claims may be denied in specified cases involving injection contrary to SLDC directions or risk to grid security, subject to notice and a fair hearing.

The Court applied its earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 14115 of 2025, 31457 of 2025 and 49777 of 2025, which directed amendment of inconsistent wheeling-agreement clauses.

The Court treated the dispute as covered by its earlier decisions directing that wheeling agreements be brought into conformity with Clause 5.5.8.

It therefore directed amendment of the petitioner’s agreement and settlement of any amount payable under the tariff order.

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

Any amount payable was to be settled within eight weeks thereafter.

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

No costs were ordered.