Wheeling agreements must incorporate the tariff order’s 75% compensation rule for surplus solar energy.

Sri Krishna Textiles challenged clause 21(e) of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 28 August 2025, alleging that it was inconsistent with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s Solar Tariff Order No.9 of 2020.

The petitioner sought revision of the agreement and payment for unutilised surplus solar energy at 75% of the competitively discovered tariff.

The parties submitted that the issue was covered by earlier orders of the High Court directing revision of similar agreement clauses in line with paragraph 5.5.8.

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

Whether the respondents should be directed to revise clause 21(e) of the petitioner’s Energy Wheeling Agreement to conform with paragraph 5.5.8 of the Solar Tariff Order No.9 of 2020.

Whether payment due for surplus solar energy should be made following that revision, notwithstanding the pending appeal before APTEL.

Paragraph 5.5.8 of the Solar Tariff Order No.9 of 2020, dated 16 October 2020, governed payment for surplus energy; the Commission had interpreted it to entitle generators to 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission, or, where no tariff was fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

In M.P.No.47 of 2021, the Commission held that an inconsistent Energy Wheeling Agreement clause was contrary to the tariff order and the applicable renewable-energy regulation, and directed payment at the prescribed 75% rate, subject to specified exceptions.

The High Court’s earlier orders in W.P.No.14115 of 2025 and the subsequently cited writ petitions applied that interpretation by directing amendment of inconsistent agreement clauses.

The Court treated the issue as covered by its earlier decisions, which had directed the respondents to bring comparable Energy Wheeling Agreement clauses into conformity with paragraph 5.5.8.

It therefore ordered the same relief in this case.

Although the respondents requested that compliance await the outcome of their APTEL appeal, the Court clarified that the directions were to be complied with without waiting for that outcome; after APTEL’s decision, the authorities could proceed in accordance with law.

Any amount found payable after modification 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 after its decision.

No costs were ordered.