PDF Download 
Aparna Roy, Nandan Dawda, and Aditi Dixit, Powering Viksit Bharat 2047: Baseline Assessment of State-Level Readiness for Energy Transition, Observer Research Foundation, April 2026.
India’s energy transition is increasingly being celebrated as a story of scale. Installed renewable capacity has crossed 260 GW, and non-fossil sources now account for over half of total installed power capacity.[1] On paper, the country appears comfortably on track to meet, and perhaps exceed, its 2030 commitments.
This narrative, however, is built on installed capacity and not on energy produced and dispatched. Electricity systems do not run on installed capacity; they run on reliable generation at the right time, which is dispatched when there is demand or energy needs to be stored. By that measure, India’s transition remains structurally incomplete. Thermal power continues to supply more than 70 percent of actual electricity generation and dominates evening and night-time peaks.[2],[3] Renewable energy curtailment is rising in high-capacity states due to grid constraints.[4],[5] Simultaneously, financially stressed distribution companies continue to lock in long-term coal-based power purchase agreements to hedge against supply uncertainty.[6],[7] What emerges is a paradox: a system that is green in capacity, but still fossil in function.
This gap between capacity and system reliability is not a technical aberration; it is a structural outcome of how India’s power sector is governed. The decisive levers of the transition—land allocation, intra-state transmission, procurement strategies, tariff design, and DISCOM finances—sit with states, not the Centre. Yet, the geography of the transition is deeply uneven. Nearly 80 percent of India’s renewable capacity is concentrated in just a handful of states,[8] while large parts of the country, particularly coal-dependent and fiscally constrained regions, remain structurally locked into legacy energy systems. For these states, the transition is not merely a climate imperative; it is a question of economic viability, fiscal stability, and energy security.
This divergence creates a deeper systemic risk. An energy transition that advances unevenly across states risks producing a two-speed India: one that attracts green capital, new industry, and infrastructure, and another that remains burdened by stressed DISCOMs, stranded assets, and rising political resistance. Such asymmetry does not just slow the transition; it undermines the federal coherence of the transition itself.
Despite this, most existing assessments of India’s energy transition remain either capacity-centric or nationally aggregated, offering limited insight into whether states are institutionally and systemically prepared to deliver the next phase of the transition: reliable, round-the-clock renewable energy (RTC RE).
India’s power sector is a multi-layered system where generation, transmission, distribution, markets, regulation, and finance are institutionally distinct but functionally interdependent. Its structure reflects a vertically unbundled architecture, yet one where outcomes are determined by the coherence across these layers.
At the upstream end, electricity generation is undertaken by a mix of central public sector undertakings,[9] state-owned utilities, and private developers, drawing on a diversified energy base that includes coal, hydro, nuclear, and an expanding portfolio of renewable sources. While capacity addition has accelerated, particularly in renewables, the operational profile of generation remains anchored in thermal power, reflecting the system’s continued dependence on dispatchable baseload for reliability.
Transmission forms the backbone that connects generation centres to demand nodes. A centrally coordinated national grid,[10] supported by interstate and intrastate transmission networks, enables power flows across regions. Real-time system balancing and grid discipline are maintained through a layered load dispatch architecture, ensuring frequency stability and reliability in an increasingly complex generation mix.
At the consumer interface lies the distribution segment, dominated by state-owned distribution companies (DISCOMs), alongside select private operators in urban centres. DISCOMs are the financial and operational fulcrum of the sector: they procure power, manage retail supply, and absorb the commercial risks of the system. Their financial health, tariff structures, and procurement strategies directly shape investment signals across the value chain.
Overlaying these physical layers is an evolving electricity market architecture. Power exchanges, bilateral contracts, and open access mechanisms are gradually introducing competitive price discovery and enabling greater participation of large consumers in procurement decisions. However, market deepening remains uneven and is often mediated by regulatory design and DISCOM incentives.
The entire ecosystem is governed through a federal regulatory framework. While the central government sets broad policy direction, the decisive levers—tariff setting, procurement approval, grid planning, and market access—reside with state-level regulators. Financial institutions further underpin the system by enabling capital flows into generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure. Taken together, the Indian power sector is not merely a technical system but an institutional one, where outcomes are shaped less by individual components and more by the alignment—or misalignment—across them. As the energy transition advances, this interdependence becomes more pronounced: the shift to clean energy is no longer a question of adding capacity, but of reconfiguring how these layers interact to deliver reliable, affordable, and low-carbon power.
Figure 1: Ecosystem of Power Sector in India
Source: The figure is an original illustration developed by the authors based on India’s power sector institutional framework, informed by Ministry of Power[11] and Central Electricity Authority,[12] and generated using AI-assisted tools OpenAI ChatGPT.[13]
India’s energy transition has reached an inflection point. While progress has been substantial in expanding renewable energy capacity, the next phase of the transition is defined not by how much capacity is added, but by whether power systems can deliver reliable, round-the-clock clean energy. This shift from capacity to system performance raises a more fundamental question: Are states institutionally and operationally equipped to manage this transition?
At the core of this enquiry lies a structural reality. The key determinants of transition outcomes—procurement design, tariff structures, grid planning, and DISCOM finances—are anchored at the state level. Yet, the trajectory of the transition across states remains deeply uneven. Some states have advanced in renewable deployment and market development, while others remain constrained by institutional gaps, financial stress, or structural dependence on fossil-based systems. This divergence suggests that India’s transition cannot be understood through aggregated national metrics alone.
There is, therefore, a need for a more grounded assessment of state-level readiness—one that captures both the institutional capacity to govern the transition and the actual performance of energy systems on the ground. Existing analyses tend to focus either on deployment indicators or on policy intent, offering limited insight into whether states can translate ambition into reliable energy outcomes.
This study is motivated by the need to bridge that gap. It adopts a composite analytical approach that brings together two complementary dimensions of transition readiness: institutional architecture and energy system performance. These are operationalised through the Regulatory Performance Index (RPI),[14] which reflects the strength and effectiveness of state-level regulatory frameworks, and the State Energy and Climate Index (SECI),[15] which captures outcomes across DISCOM performance, clean energy deployment, and reliability.
By integrating these dimensions, the study moves beyond fragmented assessments to examine how institutional design and system performance interact—whether they reinforce each other or operate in tension. It further identifies states where these dynamics are most pronounced, not as static categories of performance, but as contexts where the challenges of the transition are most visible and analytically relevant.
In doing so, the study positions itself as both diagnostic and directional. It seeks to map the contours of divergence in state-level readiness, while also laying the foundation for deeper inquiry into the policy, market, and institutional shifts required to enable a reliable, financially viable, and systemically coherent energy transition across India.
The methodology works to fulfil a gap that conventional energy assessments have largely overlooked: the ability of states to move beyond renewable capacity creation to delivering reliable, round-the-clock clean energy systems. While existing frameworks capture progress in deployment and policy intent, they offer limited insight into whether states possess the institutional depth, financial resilience, and system readiness required for the next phase of the transition.
To address this, the study adopts a state-level analytical framework that evaluates energy transition readiness as a function of two interdependent dimensions: institutional capacity and energy system performance. These dimensions are operationalised through two nationally recognised indices: The Regulatory Performance Index (RPI) and the State Energy and Climate Index (SECI). Each index captures a distinct but complementary layer of the transition.
Taken together, these indices enable a more integrated assessment of state readiness, one that moves beyond isolated metrics to examine whether institutional design and energy performance are aligned or in tension. This composite approach forms the basis for both the selection of states and the comparative analysis that follows. The framework also informs the identification of states where a deeper examination of transition pathways would yield the most policy-relevant insights.
The RPI, published by the Power Foundation of India in collaboration with REC Ltd., evaluates the effectiveness of State Electricity Regulatory Commissions on a 100-point scale. It assesses five core dimensions: resource adequacy, DISCOM financial viability, ease of doing business, energy transition compliance, and regulatory governance. Given that key transition decisions such as procurement design, tariff setting, and grid access are mediated through state regulators, the RPI serves as the primary proxy for institutional readiness. The composite score is built across five weighted parameters: Resource Adequacy (32 percent), Financial Viability of DISCOMs (25 percent), Ease of Living and Doing Business (23 percent), Energy Transition (15 percent), and Regulatory Governance (5 percent).[a] Each parameter is scored independently, and the composite is the weighted sum of all five. Higher scores indicate stronger regulatory performance and better readiness of the states for the energy transition.12
The SECI, published by NITI Aayog in April 2022, provides a comprehensive assessment of energy system performance across states and UTs. It captures outcomes across six dimensions, including DISCOM health (40 percent), Access, Affordability and Reliability (15 percent), Clean Energy Initiatives (15 percent), Environmental Sustainability (12 percent), New Initiatives such as electric mobility and smart metering (12 percent), and Energy Efficiency (6 percent).[b] By integrating both clean energy progress and utility performance, the SECI offers the closest available approximation of where states stand in operationalising the transition. Each indicator is normalised to a 0-100 scale, and parameter scores are computed as the weighted average of normalised indicator values within that parameter. The composite SECI score is the weighted mean of all six parameter scores. States scoring 46 and above are classified as Frontrunners, 36-46 as Achievers, and 36 and below as Aspirants.13
The theoretical framework showcasing both the indices, the main parameters and indicators along with their weights is shown in Figure 2. The detailed view of every parameter, including sub-indicators, descriptions, and their measuring units, is presented in Annex I.
Figure 2: Index Framework for State Selection: Parameters and Sub-Indicators
The effect of the parameters on the ecosystem of the power sector is as shown in Table 1. The detailed description is available in Annex II.
Table 1: Effects of RPI & SECI Parameters on Ecosystem of Power Sector
| Parameter | Primary Ecosystem Nodes |
| Resource Adequacy | Fuel Sources → Power Generation → Transmission; Regulation & Policy; Finance |
| Financial Viability of DISCOMs | Distribution (DISCOMs); Finance (PFC, REC); Regulation & Policy (SERC) |
| Ease of Living / Doing Business | Distribution → Consumers; Electricity Market; Regulation & Policy |
| Energy Transition | Fuel Sources (Solar, Wind); Power Generation; Electricity Market (IEX/REC); Regulation & Policy |
| Regulatory Governance | Regulation & Policy (SERC institutional capacity) |
| DISCOM Performance (SECI) | Distribution; Finance; Electricity Market; Consumers |
| Access, Affordability & Reliability (SECI) | Distribution → Consumers; Regulation & Policy (tariff equity) |
| Clean Energy Initiatives (SECI) | Fuel Sources (RE, CNG); Power Generation; Consumers |
| Environmental Sustainability (SECI) | Fuel Sources; Power Generation; Consumers (energy intensity) |
| New Initiatives (SECI) | Distribution → Consumers (smart meters, EVs); Electricity Market |
| Energy Efficiency (SECI) | Consumers (industry, buildings); Power Generation (demand reduction) |
The actual value of both SECI and RPI index reported for the states and union territories based on both the frameworks are as displayed in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
Figure 3: SECI Index Score Across Indian States and UTs
Source: SECI[18]
Figure 4: RPI Index Score Across Indian States and UTs
Source: RPI[19]
A two-step methodology was adopted to derive the composite index for mapping the state-level energy assessment. In the first step, the states were normalised, and then a composite index was derived by applying the unweighted mean of the normalised score of each index.
Normalisation of Indices
Each of these indices operates on a different scale and unit; to enable aggregation and to derive the composite index value, both were normalised to a 0-1 scale using min-max normalisation. For both the RPI and SECI, the higher raw scores indicate better performance, the normalised value is calculated using the following formula:
The heat map representing the variability of the states across both the indices, based on the normalised score is as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: Heat Map of Indices Under Purview for State Selection
Finally, to get a macroscopic picture of the state performance, considering both the indices, the composite score for each state is the unweighted mean and was derived using the following formula:
The reason to take equal weighting is to ensure the absence of strong prior justification for privileging any one dimension over the other in a selection framework. The composite scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating stronger overall transition readiness of the states and UTs across both dimensions. The composite scores are as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Composite Score Across Indian States and UTs
Source: Primary analysis by authors
The composite score across 36 states and UTs ranges from 0.22-0.88, with a mean of 0.549 and a standard deviation of 0.189. States and UTs are grouped into three equal-interval tiers based on their composite scores. Equal intervals are used because the composite score was built on a 0-1 normalised scale, and dividing it into equal thirds preserves the interpretive logic of the underlying indices and avoids imposing cluster boundaries that are artefacts of the distribution rather than the data. The distribution clearly showcases that states are heavily concentrated in the middle, as 18 of 36 states fall in the medium tier. The states are classified as “Frontrunners”, “Contenders” and “Aspirants”, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Distribution of States Based on Composite Index Scores
| Performance | Score Range | No. of States/UTs |
| Aspirants | 0.000 - 0.33 | 7 |
| Contenders | 0.33 - 0.67 | 18 |
| Frontrunners | 0.67 - 1.0 | 11 |
Aspirants (0-0.33): Seven states and UTs fall here. Rajasthan is the most significant entry in this tier. Its RPI scores zero across the entire Resource Adequacy parameter—no RA regulations, no CAPEX plans, no planning reserve margin—and zero on Financial Viability’s tariff orders and cost-reflective tariff. Its SECI, where it is classified as an Aspirant, records the lowest DISCOM performance among larger states and weak Clean Energy Initiatives. Despite leading nationally on installed solar capacity, it ranks last in the composite. High deployment has not produced regulatory performance or systemic energy outcomes. It is the clearest case in the sample of capacity additions outpacing transition readiness.
Nagaland records zero on four sub-indicators under Resource Adequacy in RPI, partial FPPAS compliance, and a SECI that records the second lowest among smaller states, with negligible Clean Energy Initiatives. Jammu & Kashmir, like Nagaland, scores zero on the same sub-indicators under Resource Adequacy in RPI. It has no net metering framework and records weak DISCOM performance and near-zero Clean Energy Initiatives.
Chhattisgarh scores zero on Resource Adequacy and zero on Financial Viability’s tariff parameters in RPI, while recording the lowest SECI among all larger states—with the weakest Environmental Sustainability in the full sample, minimal Clean Energy Initiatives, zero Energy Efficiency, and below-average DISCOM performance among larger states. Ladakh and Lakshadweep both record SECI scores near the bottom of the full sample, reflecting limited grid connectivity, low demand density, and minimal clean energy progress. Their composite scores reflect the absence of energy system development rather than any regulatory or performance strength.
Tripura records the lowest RPI in the dataset, with no Resource Adequacy regulations, no tariff orders, no CAPEX plans, no cost-reflective tariff. The foundational regulatory infrastructure does not exist. Despite this, it records the highest New Initiatives score among smaller states, driven by EV penetration and smart meter rollout. It is the clearest case in the dataset of energy outcomes decoupling from regulatory architecture in the negative direction.
Contenders (0.33-0.66): The dominant pattern in this tier is cross-index divergence. Delhi achieved the highest SECI score in the sample, driven by Clean Energy Initiatives and New Initiatives, against one of the lowest RPI scores, with zero on Resource Adequacy and Financial Viability. Energy outcomes in a city-state context decouple entirely from the regulatory environment.
Madhya Pradesh ranks high on RPI, with full marks on Resource Adequacy and Financial Viability, yet records one of the lowest SECI scores among larger states, pulled down by weak Environmental Sustainability, near-zero Energy Efficiency, minimal Clean Energy Initiatives, and the lowest New Initiatives score among states with high RPI scores. The gap between its regulatory capacity and energy performance is the largest among states with high RPI scores.
Mizoram scores strongly on RPI, with full marks on Resource Adequacy, Financial Viability, and Regulatory Governance, yet its SECI is among the lowest in the full sample, pulled down by near-zero Clean Energy Initiatives, very low Energy Efficiency, and negligible New Initiatives. Jharkhand follows the same structural logic: strong RPI with full Resource Adequacy marks, but SECI reflects the second lowest Environmental Sustainability, Clean Energy Initiatives among larger states. Both illustrate a pattern that recurs across the dataset: institutional capacity can produce a reasonable composite without any corresponding progress on energy outcomes.
Uttarakhand scores a moderate RPI with near-full Financial Viability and a balanced SECI, which makes it among the few larger states to score well on both Access, Affordability and Reliability and Environmental Sustainability simultaneously.
Meghalaya and Andaman & Nicobar Islands each record SECI scores near the bottom of the full sample, reflecting limited grid connectivity and minimal clean energy progress. However, their composite scores overstate transition readiness relative to their energy system realities.
Kerala’s weak RPI reflects two failures: no Resource Adequacy regulations have been notified, meaning procurement planning and reliability frameworks are absent, and its DISCOM carries regulatory assets, indicating that revenue gaps are being deferred rather than recovered through cost-reflective tariffs. Yet its SECI is the second highest among larger states because it delivers electricity well. It leads nationally on Access, Affordability and Reliability, scoring highest on hours of supply in both agriculture and industry and on cross-subsidisation management. The gap between regulatory design and service delivery is wide, and in Kerala’s case, the latter runs well ahead of the former.
Odisha presents a different failure. Resource Adequacy is largely formalised, but Financial Viability is undermined by an unissued True-Up order and only partial FPPAS compliance, leaving power purchase cost variations unrecovered. Its SECI reflects this, with very low Clean Energy Initiatives and the third weakest Environmental Sustainability among larger states. Tamil Nadu presents a different kind of tension. Its RPI is mid-range, pulled down by weak performance on Financial Viability and Regulatory Governance, while its SECI is among the average-scoring larger states, driven by Energy Efficiency—the highest in the full sample—and moderate DISCOM performance.
Uttar Pradesh’s State Electricity Regulatory Commission (SERC) has not performed basic annual regulatory functions—no Resource Adequacy regulations, no tariff orders, no cost-reflective tariff. Yet its SECI records the second-highest New Initiatives score among larger states, driven by EV penetration. The state is advancing on emerging technologies while foundational DISCOM governance is absent.
West Bengal fails on Resource Adequacy and carries regulatory assets in its last True-Up, meaning revenue gaps are being deferred. Its SECI’s most notable feature is a relatively high Environmental Sustainability score among larger states, driven by forest cover and energy intensity, not energy policy.
Andhra Pradesh scores zero on the majority of Resource Adequacy sub-indicators because no RA regulations have been notified, yet achieves full marks on Energy Transition and Regulatory Governance—RPO trajectories are specified, penalties are in place, and Green Energy Open Access is fully enabled. On Financial Viability, its DISCOMs show no revenue gap, no regulatory assets, and a functioning FPPAS mechanism, though the True-up Order for FY 2023-24 remains unissued. Its SECI records zero on New Initiatives, the worst among larger states. Manipur follows a near-identical pattern to Andhra Pradesh—zero Resource Adequacy, full Financial Viability and Energy Transition—with SECI reflecting limited Clean Energy Initiatives and negligible New Initiatives. Regulatory compliance is present on paper, but energy system development has not followed.
Arunachal Pradesh presents the sharpest version of this divergence. Its RPI achieves full marks across four of the five parameters: RA regulations notified, CAPEX plans approved, tariff orders timely, RPO trajectories and penalties specified. The regulatory architecture is among the most complete in the country. The framework exists; the energy system it is meant to govern has not developed. Its SECI is the lowest among smaller states, with the weakest DISCOM performance in its category and near-zero Clean Energy Initiatives.
Bihar scores zero on the regulatory sub-indicators in Resource Adequacy and partial Financial Viability, where one of its two DISCOMs carries a revenue gap exceeding the permissible threshold despite a tariff hike. Its Energy Transition only partially conforms to the MoP notification. Its SECI reflects weak Clean Energy Initiatives, driven by very limited clean cooking fuel penetration across a large and energy-poor population.
Frontrunners (0.66-1): Among the eleven states and UTs in this tier, Punjab is the only state to score above 0.75 on both indices simultaneously. Its RPI reflects full marks across Resource Adequacy, Financial Viability, Ease of Doing Business, and Regulatory Governance. Its SECI is driven by strong DISCOM performance and solid Access, Affordability and Reliability scores, making it the only case in the full sample of genuinely broad-based performance. Haryana follows a similar profile, with no single index pulling down the overall score. Three of the eleven entries—Chandigarh, Dadra & NH and DD, and Puducherry—are UTs, which limits their relevance as federal policy comparators.
Maharashtra and Karnataka record two of the highest RPI scores in the full dataset, achieving full marks across Resource Adequacy, Financial Viability, Energy Transition, and Regulatory Governance. Maharashtra’s SECI is led by Energy Efficiency, the second highest nationally, but its Clean Energy Initiatives score is moderate. Karnataka’s SECI is balanced across parameters but scores relatively low on Clean Energy Initiatives and New Initiatives.
Himachal Pradesh and Assam both reach this tier on the strength of their RPI scores. Himachal Pradesh’s SECI is pulled up by New Initiatives and the highest Environmental Sustainability score among larger states, suggesting that regulatory strength has partially converted into energy outcomes. Assam presents the opposite case—its RPI is the fourth highest nationally, with full marks across Resource Adequacy, Financial Viability, Energy Transition, and Regulatory Governance, yet its SECI remains average, pulled down by weak Clean Energy Initiatives.
Gujarat is the exception in this tier. Its SECI is the highest among all large states, driven by DISCOM performance, Clean Energy Initiatives, and Access, Affordability and Reliability. Its RPI, however, scores zero on most Resource Adequacy sub-indicators, reflecting an absence of notified RA regulations. Its placement in the Frontrunners tier rests on energy and DISCOM performance, not regulatory architecture.
Goa is one of the strongest performers among smaller states on SECI, led by Clean Energy Initiatives and DISCOM performance, reflecting the advantages of a small, urbanised, and relatively affluent economy. Its composite score places it in the Frontrunners tier, though its structural profile limits its direct relevance as a policy model for larger or more complex energy systems.
While data identifies Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra as frontrunners in India’s renewable energy expansion, the composite index developed in this study presents a more nuanced picture of transition readiness. By integrating regulatory performance with energy system outcomes, the analysis reveals that leadership in renewable capacity does not necessarily translate into institutional strength or system reliability.
Rajasthan exemplifies this divergence most starkly. Despite its leadership in solar capacity, it ranks among the weakest in overall readiness due to gaps in regulatory frameworks and persistent DISCOM underperformance. This underscores a structural disconnect between capacity deployment and governance capability. Gujarat presents a more complex case: strong energy system performance coexists with the absence of foundational regulatory mechanisms, particularly in resource adequacy planning, raising concerns about the sustainability of its transition trajectory.
Maharashtra and Karnataka, in contrast, demonstrate robust regulatory performance, yet their progress on clean energy initiatives and emerging system-level interventions remains moderate. This points to an incomplete translation of institutional capacity into on-ground energy outcomes. Tamil Nadu, despite its longstanding position in renewable energy development, reflects similar structural frictions, where operational and financial constraints continue to shape transition performance within the composite framework.
Taken together, these findings challenge the prevailing narrative of transition leadership defined purely by installed capacity. They highlight that the credibility of India’s energy transition will depend not only on scaling renewables, but on aligning institutional frameworks, financial viability, and system performance. Without this alignment, capacity expansion risks outpacing the very systems required to sustain it.
States exhibit different combinations of institutional strength and energy system performance, and these variations suggest that a more granular, state-level analysis is necessary to understand how the transition will unfold in practice, particularly in contexts where the gap between ambition and execution is the widest. The spatial distribution of Indian states based on the composite score is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Composite Score Distribution in India, by State*
Source: Authors’ representation based on composite index scores; map created in GIS using the publicly available administrative boundaries.
*Disclaimer: The map of India is for illustrative purposes only. Boundaries do not imply official endorsement by the Government of India.
The composite analysis reveals that India’s transition is not defined by a linear progression from low to high performance, but by distinct state typologies. These include: (1) renewable frontrunners with varying degrees of system integration, (2) coal-dependent states managing structural and fiscal transition risks, and (3) regions where the transition remains nascent, shaped more by access, infrastructure, and geography than by decarbonisation imperatives.
There exist specific structural tensions that shape the feasibility of delivering reliable, round-the-clock renewable energy. These contexts are analytically useful not as categories of performance, but as sites of unresolved transition challenges that warrant deeper engagement.
Renewable and system frontrunners: Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu represent states where renewable capacity expansion and market development have advanced significantly, but where the transition is increasingly constrained by system-level integration challenges. In Gujarat, strong energy system performance and a mature renewable ecosystem coexist with gaps in formal resource adequacy frameworks, raising questions about the institutionalisation of long-term reliability planning.[20] Maharashtra presents a different tension: high regulatory capacity and market depth coexist with moderate energy system performance, making it a critical case to examine whether existing institutional frameworks are sufficient to manage transition risks under increasing climate variability. Tamil Nadu, despite its legacy in wind energy and high renewable penetration, continues to face challenges in aligning generation capacity with grid stability, financial sustainability, and procurement discipline.[21] Across these states, the core issue is not scaling renewables, but integrating them into a reliable and financially viable system.
Coal-dependent transition economies: Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand represent systems where the transition is shaped by deep structural dependence on fossil fuels. In these states, coal is not only an energy source but a fiscal and economic anchor, contributing significantly to state revenues, employment, and industrial activity. This creates a fundamental tension between decarbonisation objectives and development imperatives. Jharkhand illustrates this most clearly, with relatively strong regulatory indicators coexisting with continued fiscal reliance on coal.[22] Odisha introduces an additional layer of complexity, combining fossil dependence with weak energy transition performance and Financial Viability failures, creating compounding constraints on the pace at which transition decisions can be made. Chhattisgarh reflects the persistence of legacy infrastructure, with a system still overwhelmingly anchored in thermal capacity and limited progress on clean energy diversification.[23] In these contexts, the transition is less about technology adoption and more about managing structural economic realignment under institutional and fiscal constraints.
Emerging and access-constrained systems: Meghalaya represents a distinct transition context where the primary challenge lies not in replacing fossil-based systems, but in building reliable, scalable, and modern energy infrastructure. Despite relatively strong regulatory scores, its energy system outcomes remain constrained by limited grid connectivity, low demand density, and infrastructural gaps. This creates a divergence between institutional form and system reality. The inclusion of such a state is critical to broaden the analytical frame of the transition beyond decarbonisation, to include regions where the core question is one of energy system development under geographic and structural constraints.
Taken together, these states provide a set of high-variation, problem-driven contexts through which the study can examine how institutional capacity, financial viability, and system design interact in shaping transition outcomes. They also form the basis for deeper, state-level engagement where the objective is not only to assess readiness, but to identify actionable pathways for enabling reliable and context-specific energy transitions.
India’s energy transition is no longer constrained by national-level ambition. It is constrained by asymmetry in execution at the state level.
The evidence from this study leads to one conclusion: the next phase of the transition cannot be driven by incremental capacity additions. It requires a structural shift from a capacity-led to a system-led transition, aligning generation, grid, markets, and institutions to deliver reliable, round-the-clock clean energy.
At the core of this shift lies the institutionalisation of Resource Adequacy (RA) as a binding planning principle across states. Without enforceable RA frameworks backed by credible demand forecasting, storage integration, and flexible generation, renewable expansion will continue to outpace system readiness, deepening reliance on coal for reliability rather than reducing it.[24],[25]
Equally, the transition will remain financially fragile unless the structural weaknesses of DISCOMs are addressed. Persistent gaps between the average cost of supply and realised revenue, delayed tariff revisions, and the accumulation of regulatory assets continue to distort procurement decisions. Moving towards cost-reflective tariffs, timely true-ups, and performance-linked fiscal support is not a reform agenda; it is a precondition for sustaining the transition.[26]
However, India’s federal structure demands that this transition cannot be uniform. Coal-dependent states such as Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh require explicit just transition frameworks that address revenue dependence, labour displacement, and regional economic restructuring.[27] In these regions, the transition will not be triggered by renewable competitiveness alone; it will require coordinated fiscal, industrial, and social policy interventions.
In contrast, renewable-rich states must now pivot towards system integration. Grid modernisation, storage deployment, hybrid procurement models, and market deepening, particularly through Green Energy Open Access and contract standardisation, will determine whether high installed capacity can translate into reliable supply.[28]
A third category of states, those with relatively strong regulatory frameworks but weak on-ground execution, require targeted capacity-building interventions. Strengthening State Electricity Regulatory Commissions through technical expertise, data systems, and enforcement capabilities is essential to bridge the persistent gap between policy design and implementation.
In this context, there is a need to move beyond aggregate assessments and develop a more grounded understanding of how these structural challenges are unfolding at the state level. In particular, four areas emerge as critical to shaping the next phase of the transition.
First, the evolution of regulatory design and tariff-setting.
India’s electricity markets continue to be shaped by legacy procurement structures, opaque pricing, and politically constrained tariff-setting. There is a need to better understand how regulatory frameworks at the state level can evolve to reflect the true cost of supply while remaining responsive to local political economy constraints. This raises important questions around the design of adaptive tariff-setting mechanisms, the role of performance-based procurement, and the institutional and data capacities required by State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to enable more transparent and efficient market outcomes.
Second, the challenge of grid stability in a renewable-intensive system.
As renewable penetration increases, managing intermittency, dispatch variability, and system balancing is becoming central to the transition. There is a need to explore how states can build grid resilience through storage deployment, flexible generation, demand response, and improved forecasting capabilities. This includes examining the role of emerging technologies, regional coordination, and decentralised approaches in enabling reliable, round-the-clock clean energy supply.
Third, the role of digitalisation and subsidy reform in strengthening distribution systems.
Inefficient subsidy structures and limited transparency continue to undermine DISCOM performance. With the expansion of digital infrastructure, there is a need to assess whether more targeted, consumption-linked subsidy delivery mechanisms—enabled through Direct Benefit Transfers—can improve efficiency and financial sustainability. This also requires a closer examination of how smart metering, digital platforms, and data systems can enhance billing accuracy, reduce losses, and empower consumers.
Fourth, the fiscal and financial architecture underpinning the power sector.
DISCOM losses remain a systemic constraint, limiting the ability of the sector to attract sustained investment. There is a need to explore how states can adopt more durable financial strategies, including restructuring liabilities, improving incentive alignment, and leveraging innovative financing instruments. This includes assessing the potential of performance-linked support, blended finance, and risk mitigation frameworks to unlock investment in transmission, storage, and clean energy infrastructure.
Taken together, these areas point to a broader shift—from expanding capacity to reconfiguring the systems that underpin the transition. The variation observed across states suggests that these challenges will not manifest uniformly, and that solutions will need to be tailored to specific institutional, economic, and geographic contexts.
If leveraged effectively, India’s states can function as laboratories of transition, where differentiated pathways—coal phase-down, renewable integration, grid innovation, and regulatory reform—generate models that are both scalable domestically and replicable across the developing world.
India is already undergoing a significant energy transition. The question is how it can do so in ways that are reliable, equitable, and systemically coherent, across all its states, not just a few.
The composite index developed in this study is subject to a set of limitations arising from data comparability, methodological choices, and scope. These define the boundaries within which its findings should be interpreted, and do not undermine the analytical value of the framework.
First, the two underlying indices—the Rating of Regulatory Performance of States and UTs and the State Energy and Climate Index—draw on data from different time periods. While this introduces a temporal mismatch, it does not weaken the analysis. Institutional capacity, regulatory quality, and energy system performance are structural attributes that evolve gradually. As such, the composite index captures enduring patterns rather than short-term fluctuations, offering a more stable view of state-level readiness.
Second, the indices differ in their analytical focus: one evaluates regulatory governance and financial sustainability, while the other assesses energy system outcomes, including clean energy deployment and climate performance. This divergence is not a constraint but a strength. It enables a more integrated assessment of the transition by bringing together institutional inputs and system-level outputs. The use of an unweighted arithmetic mean further reinforces transparency and avoids introducing subjective bias through differential weighting, ensuring comparability across states.
At the same time, aggregation into a composite measure necessarily reduces granularity at the indicator level. This limits the ability to capture specific policy or operational nuances within individual states. However, the objective of this study is not a micro-level diagnosis but macro-level comparison. In this context, the composite approach is appropriate, as it highlights broad patterns, relative positioning, and systemic divergences in transition readiness.
Differences in data sources, indicator construction, and normalisation methodologies across the two indices also present inherent constraints. However, both indices are developed by credible national institutions using standardised and methodologically robust frameworks, ensuring a reasonable degree of internal consistency and comparability.
The index also does not explicitly adjust for structural differences between states and UTs, such as size, economic composition, or energy demand profiles. These variations are partially embedded within the original indices, which incorporate state-specific parameters. Moreover, the cross-sectional design of the analysis is intended to provide a comparative snapshot rather than a fully contextualised assessment of each state’s transition pathway.
Finally, while there may be areas of thematic overlap between the indices, this does not distort the results. Instead, it reinforces the central dimensions of the transition—regulatory capacity, financial viability, and system performance—ensuring that critical factors are not underrepresented.
Overall, the composite index offers a pragmatic and policy-relevant tool for assessing state-level energy transition readiness. Its strength lies not in precision at the margin, but in its ability to reveal structural patterns, highlight divergences, and inform a more grounded understanding of India’s evolving energy landscape.
Aparna Roy is Fellow and Lead, Climate Change and Energy, ORF.
Nandan Dawda is Fellow, Urban Studies Programme, ORF.
Aditi Dixit is an Intern at ORF.
All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.
The table provides a clear framework of indicators for evaluating the performance of Indian states in the power and energy sector. Each parameter breaks down into specific, measurable indicators, along with detailed descriptions and units of measurement.
The table contains both qualitative and quantitative data types. This includes binary indicators, such as Yes/No (Y/N) for regulatory provisions; ratio-based financial metrics, such as the debt-equity ratio; percentage-based efficiency indicators; loss indicators including AT&C losses; and absolute or intensity-based measures, such as emissions per unit of GSDP. It also covers time-related and compliance-based aspects, such as the timeliness of regulatory actions and alignment with national targets. Overall, the table presents a multidimensional, evidence-based framework for assessing state-level readiness and performance in the context of power sector reforms and the broader energy transition in India. The framework comprises 48 indicators spanning multiple data types that together capture the regulatory, financial, operational, and environmental dimensions of the power sector in a comprehensive and analytically robust manner.
| Index | Parameter | Indicator | Description | Unit |
| Regulatory Performance Index (Power Foundation of India & REC Ltd.) | Resource Adequacy 32% | Formulation of Resource Adequacy Regulations | Whether the regulator has notified the rules required to plan and ensure reliable power supply for consumers. | Y/N, scored on timing of notification |
| Defining Planning Reserve Margin | Whether the regulator has defined how much extra generation capacity the state must keep in reserve to meet unexpected spikes in demand. | Y/N | ||
| Timelines for Resource Adequacy Planning | Whether the distribution company (DISCOM) and the state regulator have met the required deadlines for submitting and approving long-term power procurement plans to the national grid authority and the state regulator. | Y/N | ||
| Non-Compliance Charges for Failure to Meet RA Targets | Whether the regulator has specified financial penalties for the DISCOM if it fails to meet the resource adequacy targets approved by the commission. | Y/N | ||
| Min. 3-Year CAPEX Plan of State Transmission Utility (STU) - Approved by SERC | Whether the State Transmission Utility (STU), which manages the high-voltage transmission network, has a multi-year capital investment plan that has been reviewed and approved by the regulator. | Y/N, scored on the recency of plan | ||
| Min. 3-Year CAPEX Plan of DISCOM - Approved by SERC | Whether the distribution company (DISCOM), which delivers electricity to end consumers, has a multi-year capital investment plan that has been reviewed and approved by the regulator. | Y/N, scored on recency of plan | ||
| Financial Viability of DISCOMs 25% | Timely Issuance of Tariff and True-Up Orders | Whether the regulator has issued the annual electricity tariff order on time and reconciled actual costs against approved projections for the previous year. Delays in either create financial uncertainty for the distribution company (DISCOM). | Marks deducted per month of delay | |
| Cost-Reflective Tariff | Whether the tariff set by the regulator is sufficient to cover the actual cost of supplying electricity. A tariff that falls short of costs means the DISCOM is selling electricity at a loss. | Revenue gap as % of ARR | ||
| Non-Creation of Regulatory Assets | Whether the DISCOM has avoided deferring unrecovered revenue gaps to future tariff periods. When regulators allow such gaps to be deferred rather than recovered immediately, they are recorded as regulatory assets—a sign of financial stress that compounds over time. | Y/N | ||
| Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment Surcharge (FPPAS) | Whether the regulator has a mechanism to pass through changes in fuel and power purchase costs to consumers on a timely basis, avoiding large tariff shocks at year-end reconciliation. | Y/N + frequency (Monthly/Quarterly) | ||
| Ease of Living/Doing Business 23% | Release of Connection and Compensation | Whether the regulator has specified how quickly new electricity connections must be released to consumers, and whether compensation is paid if those timelines are missed. | Y/N | |
| Testing of Meters and Compensation | Whether the regulator has set timelines for testing meters reported as faulty, and whether consumers are compensated for delays. | Y/N | ||
| Replacement of Meters and Compensation | Whether the regulator has set timelines for replacing defective meters, and whether consumers are compensated for delays. | Y/N | ||
| Release of Net Metering Connections | Whether the regulator has specified how quickly rooftop solar installations must be connected to the grid and given a net metering arrangement. | Y/N | ||
| Pre-Specified Connection Charges | Whether charges for new electricity connections up to 150 kW are pre-specified and standardised, so consumers know the cost upfront without needing a case-by-case assessment. | Y/N | ||
| Quality of Power Supply | Whether the regulator has defined reliability standards for electricity supply (such as how often and how long outages can occur) and whether compensation is specified when those standards are breached. | Y/N | ||
| Progressive Reduction of Open Access Surcharge and Cross-Subsidy | Whether charges for consumers who wish to buy electricity from a supplier other than their local DISCOM have been progressively reduced over the last five years, making the electricity market more competitive. | Y/N + trend over 5 years | ||
| Energy Transition 15% | Green Energy Open Access (GEOA) | Whether the regulator has enabled consumers to directly procure renewable energy from the open market at the 100 kW threshold, including waivers for green hydrogen, green ammonia, and waste-to-energy projects, and whether a green tariff has been specified. | Y/N | |
| Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPO) | Whether the regulator has set mandatory targets for the share of renewable energy that utilities must procure, in line with central government requirements up to FY 2029-30, and whether penalties for missing those targets have been specified. | Y/N + trajectory conformity | ||
| Regulatory Governance 5% | Regulations for Appointment of Officers | Whether the regulator has notified formal rules governing the appointment and service conditions of its own officers and staff. | Y/N | |
| Bifurcation of Sanctioned Posts | Whether the regulator has formally categorised its staff positions across Groups A, B, C and D, reflecting a structured and institutionalised organisation. | Y/N | ||
| State Energy & Climate Index (NITI Aayog) | DISCOM Performance 40% | Debt-Equity Ratio | The ratio of a distribution company's (DISCOM's) total debt to its net worth. A lower ratio means the DISCOM is less financially leveraged and better placed to invest and operate sustainably. DISCOMs with negative net worth score zero. | Ratio |
| AT&C Losses (Aggregate Technical and Commercial Losses) | The share of electricity that is generated but either lost in the network or billed but not collected. A lower figure means the DISCOM is operating more efficiently and recovering more of its revenue. | % | ||
| ACS-ARR Gap | The difference between the Average Cost of Supply (ACS)—what it costs to deliver a unit of electricity—and the Average Revenue Realised (ARR)—what the DISCOM actually collects. A persistent positive gap means the DISCOM is selling electricity below cost. | INR per kWh | ||
| T&D Losses | Electricity lost between generation and delivery to the consumer due to technical factors such as ageing infrastructure and non-technical factors such as theft. | % | ||
| Implementation of Time-of-Day/Time-of-Use (ToD/ToU) Tariff for Consumers | Whether consumers are charged different prices for electricity depending on the time of day. This encourages consumers to shift usage to off-peak hours, reducing pressure on the grid during peak periods. | Y/N across consumer categories | ||
| Implementation of Direct Benefit Transfer | Whether electricity subsidies for agricultural consumers are transferred directly to them rather than routed through the DISCOM, reducing leakage and improving subsidy efficiency. | Y/N | ||
| Open Access Surcharge | The average additional charge a consumer pays when they buy electricity from a supplier other than their local DISCOM. A lower surcharge indicates a more competitive and open electricity market. | INR per kWh | ||
| Regulatory Assets | The total value of revenue shortfalls that the regulator has allowed the DISCOM to defer to future tariff periods rather than recover immediately. High regulatory assets are a sign of deep and unresolved financial stress. | INR crores | ||
| Complexity of Tariff | The total number of distinct tariff categories in the state. A simpler tariff structure is easier for consumers to understand and reduces administrative burden on the DISCOM. | Number of tariff categories | ||
| Access, Affordability and Reliability 15% | Per Capita Energy Consumption | The total amount of energy consumed per person in the state across all fuel types, including LPG, petrol, diesel, PNG, CNG, and electricity. A higher figure generally reflects broader energy access. | kgoe per capita | |
| Hours of Electricity Supplied (Industry) | The number of hours per day electricity is supplied to industrial consumers. More hours indicate more reliable supply for productive and commercial use. | Hours per day | ||
| Hours of Electricity Supplied (Agriculture) | The number of hours per day electricity is supplied to agricultural consumers. More hours indicate more reliable supply for the farm sector. | Hours per day | ||
| Cross-Subsidisation | The difference between the tariff paid by industrial consumers and that paid by domestic consumers. High cross-subsidisation places a cost burden on industry that can affect its competitiveness. | INR per kWh | ||
| Lifeline Electricity and Tariff | The affordability of electricity for low-income households, assessed through the average tariff charged at the lowest consumption slab corresponding to basic household needs. | Not specified in source | ||
| Clean Energy Initiatives 15% | Clean Cooking Fuel Supply | The per capita availability of clean cooking fuels such as LPG and PNG. Measures how far the state has shifted households away from biomass and other polluting cooking fuels. | toe per capita | |
| Renewable Energy Penetration (at Generation Level) | The share of total electricity generated in the state that comes from renewable sources. Measures how far the state has shifted its actual power generation, not just installed capacity, toward clean energy. | GWh | ||
| CNG Vehicle Penetration | The share of CNG vehicles in total registered vehicles in the state, measured only where CNG infrastructure exists. Measures progress toward cleaner transportation fuels. | % | ||
| Energy Efficiency 6% | Energy Intensity | The amount of energy consumed to produce one unit of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). A lower figure means the state is generating more economic value per unit of energy used. | kgoe per INR 1,000 of GSDP | |
| Energy Savings in Commercial and Public Buildings | The reduction in energy consumption in commercial and public buildings specifically due to energy efficiency measures such as building codes and retrofits, drawn from the State Energy Efficiency Index. | Score (0-100) | ||
| Industrial Energy Savings | The reduction in energy consumption in industry specifically due to energy efficiency and conservation measures, drawn from the State Energy Efficiency Index. | Score (0-100) | ||
| Environmental Sustainability 12% | Emission Intensity | The volume of greenhouse gas emissions produced per unit of Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP). A lower figure indicates the state is growing its economy with a smaller carbon footprint. | kgCO2eq per INR 1,000 of GSDP | |
| Utilisation of RE Potential | The share of the state's total renewable energy potential that has been developed into installed capacity. A higher figure means the state is making better use of its natural renewable resources. | % | ||
| Percentage Change in Forest Cover | The change in the state's total forest cover since 2005. A positive figure indicates the state is expanding its forests relative to the baseline year. | % change since 2005 | ||
| Forest Carbon Stock | The amount of carbon stored per hectare of forest in the state. Denser and healthier forests store more carbon and score higher on this indicator. | Tonnes per hectare | ||
| New Initiatives 12% | EV Penetration | The share of electric and hybrid vehicles in total registered vehicles in the state. Measures how far the state has progressed in electrifying its transport sector. | % | |
| Availability of Charging Infrastructure for Electric Mobility | The number of public charging stations relative to the number of EVs registered in the state. Measures whether charging infrastructure is keeping pace with the growth in electric vehicles. | % | ||
| Proportion of Consumers with Smart Meters | The share of electricity consumers who have had smart meters installed. Smart meters enable real-time consumption monitoring, better demand management, and time-of-day pricing. | % |
The composite index, which draws on the Regulatory Performance Index (RPI) and the State Energy and Climate Index (SECI), evaluates states' potential for the energy transition by assessing performance across all layers simultaneously. Resource Adequacy (32 percent weight) and its sub-indicators on RA regulations, planning reserves, and CAPEX plans connect directly to the generation and transmission nodes. This ensures that states show the system capacity and investment discipline needed before committing to a faster clean energy shift. Financial Viability of DISCOMs (25 percent) supports the distribution and finance nodes. Timely tariff orders, cost-reflective pricing, controlled regulatory asset creation, and effective FPPAS mechanisms together determine if the distribution utility—the financial backbone of the entire ecosystem—can maintain the cash flows necessary to buy, pay for, and deliver renewable energy reliably.
The Ease of Living/Doing Business parameter (23 percent) functions at the important distribution-to-consumer interface. It measures connection timelines, net metering frameworks, meter accuracy, and power supply quality. These conditions determine whether households, industries, and farms can actively participate in the transition or remain passive recipients. The Energy Transition parameter (15 percent) directly scores the policy and market structure for clean energy. Green Energy Open Access (GEOA) enables industrial consumers to bypass DISCOMs and buy renewable energy directly. Meanwhile, Renewable Purchase Obligations (RPOs) create binding demand that flows through the distribution node into the generation and fuel source nodes. Regulatory Governance (5 percent) may have the smallest weight, but it serves as the foundation for all other parameters. The depth of staffing and appointment integrity of SERCs determine if tariff orders, RA regulations, and net metering frameworks are issued consistently and with the technical rigour needed for the transition.
The SECI parameters broaden the assessment beyond regulatory performance to include the full socioeconomic and environmental landscape. DISCOM Performance (40 percent of SECI) strengthens the distribution-finance link through AT&C losses, ACS-ARR gaps, T&D losses, and smart metering. These metrics show whether the distribution node can handle the complexity of a grid with a high level of renewables. Access, Affordability, and Reliability reflect consumer-node outcomes, including per capita consumption, hours of agricultural and industrial supply, and cross-subsidisation patterns that could disrupt tariff fairness and weaken DISCOM finances. Clean Energy Initiatives, Environmental Sustainability, and New Initiatives together evaluate the penetration of renewables in the fuel and generation nodes, the economy-wide decarbonisation path (energy intensity of GSDP, forest carbon stock), and the cutting-edge demand-side enablers such as EV infrastructure and smart meters that link transport and the digital economy to the electricity ecosystem. Energy Efficiency wraps up the consumer node by reducing the absolute generation burden and improving the economics of renewable integration across the entire system.
The composite index is designed so that no single part of the ecosystem can do well while others are neglected. Resource Adequacy without financial viability is not sustainable. Renewable energy targets without regulatory governance cannot be enforced. Clean energy investment without DISCOM solvency cannot be monetised. By weighting the indicators to reflect these interdependencies, with the greatest weights assigned to Resource Adequacy (32 percent) and Financial Viability of DISCOMs (25 percent), which are the two most critical systemic requirements, the index makes sure that high-scoring states are those where the entire ecosystem is working together toward a credible, financed, and governed energy transition. This systemic mapping gives policymakers, regulators, and investors a shared diagnostic language. When a state scores low on a specific sub-indicator, the ecosystem map quickly shows which node is under pressure and which upstream or downstream connections are at risk. This changes the index from a simple ranking tool into a clear reform roadmap. It provides the precise diagnostic capacity that India's energy transition needs as it moves from gigawatt targets to terawatt realities.
Aparna Roy is Fellow and Lead, Climate Change and Energy, ORF.
Nandan Dawda is Fellow, Urban Studies Programme, ORF.
Aditi Dixit is an Intern at ORF.
All views expressed in this publication are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the Observer Research Foundation, either in its entirety or its officials and personnel.
[a] The values in brackets show the weightings of each parameter.
[b] The values in brackets show the weightings of each parameter.
[1] Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2209478.
[2] Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, India Power Sector Overview FY 2024–25: Thermal Generation Growth Slowest Since COVID, CREA, 2025, https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/india-power-sector-overview-fy-2024-25/.
[3] Central Electricity Authority, National Generation Adequacy Plan 2026–27 to 2035–36, Government of India, 2026, https://cea.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/notification/2026/03/Generation_Adequacy_Plan_2035_36.pdf
[4] Nitin Jugran Bahuguna, “India Grapples with Grid Curtailment, Biggest Test Yet on Energy Transition,” Business Standard, March 3, 2026, https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/india-grapples-with-grid-curtailment-biggest-test-yet-on-energy-transition-126030300765_1.html.
[5] Vibhuti Garg and Prabhakar Sharma, “Green Power Transmission: The Invisible Barrier in India’s Clean Energy Growth,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2025, https://ieefa.org/resources/green-power-transmission-invisible-barrier-indias-clean-energy-growth.
[6] “Reform Track: Discoms Make Progress, but Challenges Remain,” Power Line Magazine, October 2025, https://powerline.net.in/2025/10/30/reform-track-discoms-make-progress-but-challenges-remain/.
[7] Vibhuti Garg, “Exiting Old Coal Power Purchase Agreements Could Save Electricity Distributors over US$7 Billion per Year,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2022, https://ieefa.org/resources/ieefa-india-exiting-old-coal-power-purchase-agreements-could-save-electricity
[8] JMK Research, “India Installed 29.5 GW of Solar and 4.96 GW Wind Capacity in the First Nine Months of 2025,” 2025, https://bluebirdsolar.com/blogs/all/india-installed-29-5-gw-of-solar-and-4-96-gw-wind-capacity-in-the-first-nine-months-of-2025.
[9] Ministry of Power, Government of India, "Public Sector Undertakings," https://powermin.gov.in/en/content/public-sector-undertakings.
[10] Ministry of Power, Government of India, "Power Grid," https://powermin.gov.in/en/content/power-grid.
[11] Ministry of Power, Government of India, Power Sector at a Glance, New Delhi, https://powermin.gov.in
[12] Central Electricity Authority, Government of India, All India Installed Capacity and Generation Reports, New Delhi, Central Electricity Authority, https://cea.nic.in
[13] OpenAI, ChatGPT (AI language model), 2026, https://chat.openai.com.
[14] Power Foundation of India and REC Limited, Rating of Regulatory Performance of States and Union Territories 2025, Power Foundation of India, 2026, https://www.powerfoundation.org.in/assets/downloads/rating-regulatory-performance-of-states-and-uts-final.pdf.
[15] NITI Aayog, State Energy and Climate Index Round I, NITI Aayog, April 2022, https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022-04/StateEnergy-and-ClimateIndexRoundI-10-04-2022.pdf.
[16] “Rating of Regulatory Performance of States and Union Territories 2025”
[17] “State Energy and Climate Index Round I”
[18] “State Energy and Climate Index Round I”
[19] “Rating of Regulatory Performance of States and Union Territories 2025”
[20] Ministry of Power, Government of India, https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1936026.
[21] “Big Moves: Renewable Energy Policy Developments in Tamil Nadu,” Power Line Magazine, December 2024, https://powerline.net.in/2024/12/05/big-moves-renewable-energy-policy-developments-in-tamil-nadu/
[22] Varun Agarwal et al., “Early Action Needed to Enable a Just Transition in Indian Coal-Producing States,” WRI India and Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, 2024, https://ieefa.org/articles/early-action-needed-enable-just-transition-indian-coal-producing-states.
[23] Rohit Chandra, “India’s Coal Conundrum: Decarbonisation Amidst a Developmental Legacy,” WIREs Climate Change, 2025, https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.928.
[24] Centre for Social and Economic Progress, “What Does Renewable Energy Curtailment Signal for India’s Power System?,” CSEP, 2026, https://csep.org/blog/what-does-renewable-energy-curtailment-signal-for-indias-power-system/.
[25] International Energy Agency, Renewables Integration in India, IEA, 2021, https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-integration-in-india.
[26] Aparna Roy and Parul Bakshi, “Why India’s Round-the-Clock Renewable Energy Story Must Be Written in Coal-Rich States,” Observer Research Foundation, February 2026, https://www.orfonline.org/research/why-india-s-round-the-clock-renewable-energy-story-must-be-written-in-coal-rich-states.
[27] The Energy and Resources Institute, “Coal Transitions in India: Mitigating the Socio-Economic Fallouts,” TERI, June 21, 2022, https://www.teriin.org/article/coal-transitions-india-mitigating-socio-economic-fallouts.
[28] Vibhuti Garg and Prabhakar Sharma et al., “Impact of Green Energy Open Access Rules, 2022,” Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and JMK Research, December 2024, https://ieefa.org/resources/impact-green-energy-open-access-rules-2022.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Aparna Roy is a Fellow and Lead Climate Change and Energy at the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy (CNED). Aparna's primary research focus is on ...
Read More +
Dr Nandan H Dawda is a Fellow with the Urban Studies programme at the Observer Research Foundation. He has a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering and ...
Read More +
PREV
