Wheeling agreements must provide payment for surplus solar energy in accordance with the applicable tariff order.

The petitioner sought revision of Clause 19(d)(ii) of its Energy Wheeling Agreement dated 30 September 2025, contending that it was inconsistent with paragraph 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 tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

The parties informed the Court that the issue was covered by earlier orders directing revision of similar agreement clauses to conform to the tariff order.

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

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

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

Paragraph 5.5.8 of TNERC Solar Tariff Order No. 9 of 2020 governs payment for surplus solar energy; the Commission, in M.P. No. 47 of 2021, had held that an inconsistent Energy Wheeling Agreement clause could not displace that tariff-order provision and directed payment at 75% of the tariff fixed by the Commission or, where no tariff was fixed, 75% of the tariff discovered through competitive bidding.

The Court also applied the approach in its earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 31457 and 49777 of 2025, which directed amendment of similar agreements to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8.

The order was made in exercise of the Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court treated the petitioner’s dispute as covered by its earlier decisions concerning the same tariff-order provision and similar agreement clauses.

It therefore directed respondents 3 and 4 to revise the relevant clause to incorporate paragraph 5.5.8, rather than allowing the agreement to operate inconsistently with the tariff order.

Although the respondents referred to the pending APTEL appeal, the Court held that compliance need not await its outcome, while preserving the authorities’ ability to proceed in accordance with law after APTEL decides the matter.

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

Compliance is not to be deferred pending the APTEL appeal, but the authorities may act in accordance with law once that appeal is decided.

No costs were ordered.