Court directs petitioner to approach TNERC again for clarification on retrospective operational changes to banking mechanisms.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission (TNERC) dated 13.08.2024 made in M.P.No.23 of 2024.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, when similar issue came up before this Court in W.P.No.14287 of 2025, this Court, by order dated 30.04.2025, granted liberty to the petitioner therein to approach the TNERC by filing an application in respect of the grievances expressed by the petitioner. This Court also directed the respondents not to implement certain directions in the impugned order, so as to enable the petitioner to approach the Commission. The learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.R.Arun Kumar, learned counsel who takes notice for the respondents, would submit that similar orders can be passed in this writ petition also.

3.The order of this Court made in W.P.No.14287 of 2025, dated

30.04.2025, reads as follows :

“This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 13.08.2024 made in M.P.No.23 of 2024.

2.When the matter came up for admission, the Learned Advocate General took notice on behalf of the respondents. It can be seen that the grievance that is expressed by the petitioner is that when M.P.No.23 of 2024 was filed by the respondents seeking the approval of the implementation procedure for the adjustment of energy purchased and wheeled to High Tension customers under various open access sources by virtue of Forecasting Scheduling and Deviation Settlement for Wind and Solar Generation Regulations, 2024 ('DSM Regulations') which came into effect from 01.04.2024, the TNERC by its order dated 13.08.2024, laid down the procedure for block-wise energy adjustments with effect from 01.04.2024. It refrained from passing any order on the banking period for WEGs thereby, maintaining the status quo with respect to the banking mechanism, in line with the orders of the APTEL. It is further contended that despite refraining from making the changes for the banking period/mechanism, the TNERC has unilaterally altered the operational framework of the Banking in contravention of the objective of the DSM Regulations, its own tariff orders and orders of APTEL concerning the banking, which according to the petitioner was without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has enumerated the relevant directions in the impugned order in paragraph No.11 of the affidavit, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“11. The relevant directions in the impugned order dated 13.08.2024, unilaterally modifying the prevailing banking mechanism, without any notice, or opportunity of hearing to the affected stakeholders, are set forth below:

3.4.1 The energy accounting shall be done in 15 minutes time block basis for Open Access energy accounting purpose. Block wise / day wise generation / purchase shall be adjusted against the same block wise /

day wise consumption.

3.4.2. The surplus energy, if any, available after adjustment in the respective same 15 minutes time block basis shall be considered as banked energy along with the banking charges in force and excess consumption over and above the actual injection of energy will be charged at the tariff applicable to the consumer subject to the terms and conditions of supply.

3.4.3. The banking of energy shall be evaluated for energy accounting on 15 minutes time block basis. The positive difference between the injected energy from Wind/Solar generator available at consumption point (excluding losses in kind) and consumer’s consumption in same 15 minutes time block basis on the same day shall be considered as banked energy and this banked energy shall be permitted to be consumed on banking cycle basis.

3.4.4 Energy banked can be adjusted during any block period except during peak hour blocks within the banking cycle. However