India’s renewable energy sector is in the midst of an extraordinary build-out. Capacity targets are being met, investments are flowing in, and the country has positioned itself as a global clean-energy leader. But beneath these headline achievements lies a troubling operational reality. Take the example of Rajasthan, where more than 4,000 MW of fully commissioned renewable capacity is unable to evacuate power during peak hours, due to grid congestion.
Also Read | Tapping the shine: On the solar industry in India
This issue was highlighted as a priority risk for India’s energy transition at the Bharat Climate Forum (BCF) 2026, where policymakers, system planners, developers, and financiers converged on the view that transmission congestion and operational conservatism, rather than generation shortfalls, are now among the most binding constraints to scale.
Rajasthan has approximately 23 GW of commissioned renewable capacity, but the available evacuation margin stands at about 18.9 GW. If curtailment was distributed proportionately, peak-hour losses would be about 15% – operationally inconvenient, but financially manageable. Instead, the burden falls entirely on projects with Temporary General Network Access (T-GNA), which face 100% shutdowns during peak solar hours, while projects with Permanent GNA continue uninterrupted. This binary approach concentrates financial distress on generators who commissioned projects in good faith, met their timelines, and secured all necessary clearances.
More troubling is the persistent under-utilisation of transmission infrastructure itself. High-capacity 765 kV double-circuit corridors, each designed to evacuate around 6,000 MW and costing ₹4,000–₹5,000 crore, are often operated at 600–1,000 MW. Utilisation levels below 20% are becoming routine. Therefore, several commissioned projects remain connected but unable to inject power due to gaps in associated transmission readiness.
Question of institutional mandate
This brings us to an important question about institutional responsibility. Should the national grid operator’s mandate be limited solely to maintaining stability, or does it extend to maximising the utilisation of publicly-funded assets within safe operating parameters?
These transmission investments, now exceeding ₹1 lakh crore nationally, are recovered through consumer tariffs. When high-capacity corridors operate far below their design capacity, customers pay for infrastructure that delivers only a fraction of its intended value. At the same time, renewable generation remains stranded, compounding inefficiencies across the power system.
The risks are asymmetrically distributed. Persistent under-utilisation of transmission assets carries limited institutional consequences. There are no automatic utilisation benchmarks, no formal review triggers, and little transparency when performance falls short. Renewable generators, by contrast, absorb the full commercial impact of congestion.
Technical solutions un-deployed
The primary constraints cited in Rajasthan are voltage oscillations and the risk of grid instability. These are real challenges, but they are not insurmountable. Technologies such as STATCOMs, advanced reactive-power devices, and special protection schemes are globally deployed and well understood within India’s technical ecosystem. Many new plants are already equipped with static VAR generators and harmonic filters, yet remain unable to inject power or provide system-support services due to conservative operating envelopes. The key issue is increasingly institutional responsiveness rather than technical feasibility. Months pass without published deployment timelines, staged mitigation plans, or clarity on accountability, while thousands of megawatts remain idle.
Conservatism without accountability
Grid security is non-negotiable. But when stability becomes the sole metric of performance, the system naturally gravitates toward excessive conservatism. Operating a 765 kV corridor at 15-20% utilisation may be the safest short-term choice, but it is not the most responsible one when evaluated against system cost, consumer interest, and national energy commitments.
Globally, advanced grid operators are moving beyond static security frameworks. They employ dynamic security assessment, real-time contingency management, probabilistic risk evaluation, and adaptive line ratings, enabling higher utilisation while maintaining reliability. These approaches require greater operational vigilance – but that is precisely what modern, renewable-heavy grids demand.
Planning-operations disconnect
There is also a structural misalignment between planning and operations. The Central Transmission Utility plans corridors based on projected renewable capacity. General Network Access is allocated to developers on the assumption that planned transmission will deliver corresponding evacuation capability. Developers invest accordingly.
But when CTU plans for 6,000 MW, allocates GNA on that basis, and Grid India operationally permits only 1,000 MW to flow, the system creates a credibility problem. Planning assumptions and operational realities diverge so sharply that the regulatory compact breaks down. Developers plan billion-rupee investments based on connectivity approvals and transmission timelines, only to discover that physical infrastructure does not translate into usable capacity.
The risk of this mismatch falls almost entirely on generators. Institutions responsible for planning or operations face minimal consequences when actual performance deviates drastically from design intent.
Path forward: recommendations
Addressing this requires institutional rebalancing, not dilution of grid security.
First, Grid India must be explicitly mandated – and rigorously evaluated – not only to maintain stability but also to maximise asset utilisation within safe operational limits. Performance metrics should include both reliability and efficiency.
Second, curtailment in capacity-constrained regions must be distributed proportionately across all generators, rather than imposed entirely on T-GNA projects. The current binary treatment may align with regulatory categories, but it produces inequitable commercial outcomes.
Third, unused or under-utilised GNA capacity should be dynamically reallocated through transparent, real-time protocols. Where evacuation headroom exists within safe margins, it must be made accessible.
Fourth, when major transmission assets persistently fail to deliver expected usable capacity, formal review mechanisms must be automatically triggered. These reviews should evaluate whether constraints are technical, operational, or the result of delayed system strengthening, and findings should be published. Transparency strengthens public confidence in grid governance.
System must deliver
Rajasthan’s congestion and subsequent curtailment crisis is not inevitable. It is the product of institutional choices – about how cautiously we operate, how we allocate responsibility, and how we value public capital. India’s clean-energy transition will succeed not merely by building infrastructure at scale, but by ensuring it works efficiently, equitably, and in the interest of consumers.
Stability is foundational. But when stability comes at the cost of chronic asset underutilisation, stranded renewable capacity, and inequitable risk allocation, the system imposes costs that neither developers nor consumers should be asked to bear indefinitely.
The grid exists to deliver power, not to warehouse it. India’s renewable future depends on infrastructure that works, institutions that are accountable, and operational frameworks that balance security with performance. All three must be in place if the transition is to rest on credible ground.
(Jagjeet Sareen is a Partner and India-Head at Dalberg Advisors. Views expressed are personal.)
