#solarpolicy

The current expansion of Solar manufacturing India is often cited as a policy success, but new evidence suggests the growth is uneven. While module factories have multiplied and nameplate capacity has surged, upstream segments such as wafers and polysilicon remain critically underdeveloped. This imbalance is now emerging as a strategic risk for Solar manufacturing India.

Domestic module capacity far exceeds near-term installation demand, yet upstream dependence remains near total. India imports almost all polysilicon and the vast majority of wafers, the stages that determine cost structure, technology control, and long-term supply security. In effect, Solar manufacturing India has become strong in assembly while remaining weak at the core of the value chain.

Policy scaffolding explains much of this outcome. Incentives and procurement rules have favoured rapid downstream capacity creation, creating a protected domestic market. However, upstream manufacturing faces higher capital intensity, technology barriers, and limited equipment availability. Without targeted support, these gaps risk persisting even as module capacity continues to expand.For observers of the Indian solar industry, the implications are structural. Export competitiveness, ESG compliance, and long-term resilience all hinge on upstream integration. Within Renewable energy manufacturing, India’s challenge is no longer scale alone, but depth. Detailed sectoral assessment is published on EnergylineIndia.com, Solar Policy, Manufacturing, Energy Transition.

A new order from the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission has resolved a long-standing ambiguity affecting rooftop solar users, adding an important chapter to the NEWS ON INDIAN POWER SECTOR. The Commission has ruled that consumers with Distributed Solar PV systems do not need to execute a fresh power purchase agreement when they modify sanctioned load or contracted demand, as long as solar capacity remains unchanged.

This clarification overturns a practice where distribution companies extended tariff-revision logic meant for solar capacity expansion to purely demand-side changes. For analysts following NEWS ON INDIAN POWER SECTOR, the ruling restores regulatory intent by ensuring that contractual obligations are revisited only when generation capacity is altered.

The Commission clearly stated that only an increase in installed rooftop solar capacity triggers tariff revision or re-execution of PPAs. Demand-side adjustments—often driven by efficiency improvements or business changes—do not affect the validity of existing agreements.

This is particularly relevant for commercial and industrial consumers, who form a large share of rooftop solar adoption. In the broader NEWS ON INDIAN POWER SECTOR, such clarity reduces regulatory risk and supports continued growth of distributed generation.

For distribution utilities, the order reduces administrative burden and limits discretionary interpretation of tariff conditions. It also reinforces regulatory discipline by tying contractual consequences strictly to generation-linked actions.

At a policy level, the ruling demonstrates how state regulators are fine-tuning rooftop solar frameworks to balance consumer flexibility with grid discipline. As distributed solar scales up across India, the NEWS ON INDIAN POWER SECTOR will increasingly be shaped by such micro-level regulatory corrections that remove friction without diluting oversight.

AP Renewable Energy Export Policy : Rooftop Solar Incentives

Policy Crossover Sparks a New Solar Tariff Debate

The Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd (UGVCL) has approached the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (GERC) with a review petition that reopens a key regulatory debate in Gujarat’s solar sector what does “commissioned” really mean when two policy frameworks overlap?

At the center of the issue is GERC’s May 2024 order in Petition 2130 of 2022, which had ruled that Arka Energy’s solar projects qualified under the 2015 tariff order rather than the May 2020 tariff regime.

By challenging that conclusion, UGVCL is asking the Commission to revisit how readiness and commissioning were interpreted during Gujarat’s solar policy transition phase.

UGVCL’s Review Petition: A Question of Timing

According to UGVCL, the Commission’s earlier order overlooked factual details that could have changed the outcome.

The utility argues that:

The solar plants were not physically ready by March 2020, the last operative month of the 2015 tariff policy.

Rectification of line work and submission of commissioning documents occurred between 31 July and 4 August 2020.

GEDA’s commissioning certificates were issued even later, in September 2020, well after the 2015 window closed.

By that time, the 2020 tariff order was already in force.

What the Commission Said Earlier

GERC’s May 2024 decision took a more flexible view, treating the projects as having achieved readiness within the 2015 policy period. It held that delays were caused by the non-availability of feeder panels from GETCO and UGVCL, which were beyond the developers’ control.

But UGVCL’s review now claims that this conclusion contained “errors apparent on the face of record” and that factual assumptions about project readiness were unsupported by evidence.

Why This Matters for Gujarat’s Solar Developers

The outcome of this case could reshape how Gujarat — and perhaps other states — interpret commissioning milestones during policy transitions.

If UGVCL’s arguments prevail, developers who claimed eligibility under the 2015 tariff might instead fall under the 2020 tariff regime, resulting in lower tariffs and altered project revenues.

For investors and lenders, this means greater clarity (or risk) when projects sit on the edge of regulatory change.

The Larger Question: Intent vs. Completion

Should tariff eligibility be determined by regulatory intent, acknowledging that external factors delayed final paperwork — or should it strictly follow the actual commissioning date?

GERC’s review ruling will test that balance and set a precedent for future energy policy transitions.

This case, while technical, symbolizes a larger truth about India’s renewable energy journey: as the sector matures, regulatory precision becomes just as important as policy ambition.

What Comes Next

GERC will decide whether to admit and re-examine the review petition.

The Commission’s interpretation could affect multiple projects that were completed around mid-2020.

A final ruling may establish how “commissioned” is defined for tariff eligibility going forward.

Takeaway

This isn’t just a dispute between one utility and one developer — it’s about drawing a clear boundary between two eras of solar policy.

Whether the Commission sides with regulatory leniency or procedural discipline, the outcome will echo across Gujarat’s solar sector for years to come.

By EnergyLineIndia | November 2025

The Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (HERC) has issued a major update to its Rooftop Solar Net and Gross Metering Regulations (2019) — officially removing the 90% generation credit cap that limited prosumers from realizing full solar benefits.

This comes through the Second Amendment Order (30 October 2025, Case No. HERC/PRO-50/2025) and marks a major alignment with MNRE and CEA guidelines.

Why This Matters

That 90% cap was long seen as a drag on rooftop growth. It prevented consumers from fully offsetting generation against their consumption — discouraging optimal system design.

Now, with the cap gone, consumers can claim 100% of their generation. It’s a small technical reform with major investment implications.

New Settlement Cycle: October–September

HERC has also shifted the settlement year from April–March to October–September — aligning with the real-world solar generation curve.

This ensures the high-yield summer months get balanced across the low-generation winter months before reconciliation.

It’s a data-driven, technical fix that improves fairness and financial predictability for solar consumers.

Surplus Power Buyback Simplified

At the end of each cycle, any surplus energy will now be compensated at 90% of the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) applicable to PM-KUSUM projects.

Payments will be credited by DISCOMs within two billing cycles. This removes ambiguity around APPC-based or SECI-linked rates that had caused confusion in earlier years.

Annual Reset for Energy Credits

Prosumers’ energy credit ledgers will now reset every October 1. That means no indefinite carry-forward — but greater transparency and auditable accounting.

Exit & Billing Clarifications

If a prosumer exits mid-year, accumulated energy will still be compensated at 90% of FiT up to the exit date.

The Commission also moved from Minimum Monthly Charges (MMC) to a fixed-charge model, aligning with the FY 2025–26 tariff order.

Broader Context: From Restriction to Reform

HERC’s amendment focuses on three things:

Encouraging rooftop investment through simpler rules

Aligning state norms with national policy

Maintaining DISCOM balance through FiT-based compensation

With this, Haryana joins Karnataka, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Maharashtra, all of which have already removed rooftop generation caps.

This decision reinforces India’s rooftop-solar mission — and signals that Haryana is ready for scale-up under the 40 GW national target.

Bottom Line

The removal of the 90% credit cap, better-aligned settlement periods, and clearer surplus payout rules make Haryana’s rooftop-solar regime far more investor-friendly.

Solar Project Developers Troubled From Gujarat Solar Policy

The solar energy sector in Gujarat is facing major challenges with an investment of Rs 1,500 crore hanging in the balance on roof projects, according to estimates by a clutch of solar power producers.