MNRE Adds 402 MW of Solar Cell Capacity to ALMM, Total Nears 38 GW

Bihar Proposes 500 kW Cap for Rooftop Solar Net Metering

Soleos Energy Files Draft Papers for Initial Public Offering

Daily News Wrap-Up: India’s Transmission Plan Faces Execution Test

EU Solar-Storage Jobs Near 1 Million Mark, Manufacturing Employment Dips

PetroGreen Subsidiaries Secure $20 Million for 40 MW Solar Project

Fengate Asset Management Closes Acquisition of Accelergen Energy

Kanpur Packaging Manufacturer Installs Rooftop Solar to Cut Power Costs

TERI Announces Winner of 115 MWh Battery Storage Auction

Power Ministry Revises RoW Compensation Rules for Transmission Lines

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/amazon_polly_105428.mp3?version=1789966025">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>Battery energy storage system (BESS) project costs in India vary widely depending on system configuration, storage duration, grid interconnection requirements, engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) scope, and operating requirements.
Battery packs account for the largest share of project expenditure. However, power conversion systems (PCS), energy management systems (EMS), balance of system (BoS), grid infrastructure, EPC, and long-term operating costs can increase the total cost of a BESS project.
<a href="https://mercomindia.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Battery-Energy-Storage-Project-Cost-Breakdown-.png"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-105429 size-full" src="https://mercomindia.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Battery-Energy-Storage-Project-Cost-Breakdown-.png" alt="Battery Energy Storage Project Cost Breakdown (%)" width="351" height="369" srcset="https://mercomindia.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Battery-Energy-Storage-Project-Cost-Breakdown-.png 351w, https://mercomindia.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Battery-Energy-Storage-Project-Cost-Breakdown--285x300.png 285w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 351px) 100vw, 351px" /></a>
Industry estimates indicate that fully installed battery energy storage project capital expenditure in India ranges from ₹10 million (~$105,000)/MWh to ₹17 million (~$179,000)/MWh.
The wide range reflects differences in project scope and configuration. Some cost benchmarks cover primarily battery equipment, while others include PCS, EMS, BoS, EPC, land, and grid interconnection infrastructure.
The variation highlights the importance of understanding what is included in quoted BESS costs. Battery container prices alone do not represent the total expenditure required to commission a grid-connected storage project.
Costs Beyond Batteries
Battery packs typically account for around half to two-thirds of the total installed cost of battery storage project, depending on system configuration and the cost boundary used.
The remaining expenditure includes PCS and controls, thermal management, transformers, switchgear, electrical infrastructure, safety systems, EPC, commissioning, and grid interconnection.
The share of these components varies considerably across projects. A quotation covering battery containers can therefore differ significantly from the cost of a fully commissioned project that includes evacuation and associated grid infrastructure.
Project location can also have a material impact on capital expenditure.
BESS projects located near existing substations or evacuation infrastructure can avoid some interconnection expenditure. Land costs may be higher at such locations, although they generally represent a relatively small share of total expenditure. Greenfield projects requiring additional substations, transmission infrastructure, or significant electrical works can face higher development costs.
Storage duration is another major determinant of project economics. Systems designed for one-hour, two-hour, or four-hour discharge have different equipment requirements and cost structures even when their MW capacity is identical.
The intended application also influences project design. A system developed primarily for energy shifting can have different requirements from one expected to provide grid support, ancillary services, frequency regulation, or other applications.
O&amp;M and Augmentation
Annual operations and maintenance (O&amp;M) costs for BESS projects are estimated to range from 1.5% to 5% of project CAPEX, depending on the project structure, equipment configuration, contractual responsibilities, and services included.
Routine operating expenses include monitoring, preventive maintenance, servicing, plant management, and other system-level requirements. These expenses must be considered alongside initial capital expenditure when assessing project economics.
Battery augmentation represents another significant lifecycle consideration and is generally evaluated separately from routine O&amp;M.
Lithium-ion batteries gradually lose usable capacity as they age and cycle. Projects contracted to maintain specified energy capacity or performance levels over several years may therefore require additional battery capacity during their operating life.
The extent and timing of augmentation depend on battery chemistry, cycling frequency, operating conditions, warranties, degradation assumptions, and contractual performance requirements.
Cycling assumptions can have a significant impact on project economics. More frequent cycling can increase utilization and revenue potential while also accelerating degradation and influencing augmentation requirements.
For commercial and industrial consumers, the economics also depend on the difference between the cost of charging the battery and the value of electricity displaced or supplied during higher-tariff periods.
In Maharashtra, for example, storage can be used to shift surplus renewable generation into peak demand periods following changes to banking regulations. The commercial case depends on system sizing, cycling, tariff structure, evacuation infrastructure, degradation, and contract tenure.
Battery equipment costs, therefore, provide only a partial picture of BESS economics. Projects with similar battery capacities can have materially different total costs depending on storage duration, interconnection requirements, EPC scope, operating conditions, and lifecycle performance obligations.
When evaluating storage projects and comparing bids, developers and consumers must account for the total installed cost, storage duration, grid connectivity, EPC requirements, operating expenditure, degradation, augmentation, and performance obligations over the system’s operating life.
India added 8.2 GWh of battery energy storage capacity in the first half (1H) of 2026, nearly 84 times the 98.4 MWh installed during the same period last year, according to Mercom India Research’s newly released <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/product/india-energy-storage-landscape-q2-2026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Q2 and 1H 2026 India’s Energy Storage Landscape Report</a>.

The Real Cost of Energy Storage Systems Goes Beyond Battery Prices

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/amazon_polly_105318.mp3?version=1790313750">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>In its <a href="https://scorecard.pvel.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2026 PV Module Reliability Scorecard</a>, solar testing lab Kiwa PVEL reported that 87% of the manufacturers it tested had at least one module fail a reliability test. Mechanical breakage was among the two biggest problem areas.
Pre-shipment inspection data has placed India’s solar module defect rates among the highest in the world, with one of the most common issues being cell cracking, the scorecard found.
In its 2025 report, Kiwa identified India, Laos, and the U.S. among the countries with the highest solar module defect rates, exceeding 8%, driven by the rapid expansion of manufacturing capacity, which likely introduced challenges in quality control, operational stability, and workforce training.
According to industry experts, cell microcracking can occur even when modules appear visually intact after installation. Cracks can appear during transportation, unloading, handling, and installation.
Crystalline silicon cells are inherently brittle. Mechanical loading during movement, improper lifting, excessive pressure on module surfaces, and installation practices that introduce stress into the panel can create cracks within cells that are not immediately detectable through visual inspection.
These defects can later assume visible proportions as modules undergo daily thermal expansion and contraction and are exposed to humidity and other environmental conditions. The resulting degradation may therefore appear several months or years after installation, making the original source of the damage difficult to identify without reviewing the module&#8217;s logistics and installation history.
Proper handling procedures and avoiding unnecessary mechanical loading are therefore vital to reduce the risk of latent module failures.
Impact
The microcrack problem can <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/micro-crack-problems-solar-modules" target="_blank" rel="noopener">impact</a> the power output of the PV module and the entire system. While module manufacturers take care to prevent microcracks during production, they must pay closer attention during subsequent storage, transportation, and installation to avoid damaging the cells.
The impact on module performance may not be significant immediately after installation. However, existing cracks can expand as modules are repeatedly exposed to thermal expansion and contraction, wind loading, humidity, and other environmental stresses. A defect introduced during transportation or installation can therefore become progressively more damaging over the project&#8217;s operating life.
The impact depends on the orientation and severity of the crack. A solar cell collects current through fine grid lines and transfers it to the busbars. If a microcrack interrupts these conducting paths, portions of the cell can become electrically isolated. This can contribute to partial or complete cell failure, hotspot formation, cell fragmentation, and reduced module output.
Developers can find it challenging to establish whether the crack originated at the factory, during transportation, or at the project site. This is because the degradation does not manifest immediately.
This can lead to warranty disputes. While manufacturers can point to factory inspection records to buttress their case, developers and EPC contractors may have to prove that transportation, unloading, storage, and installation followed prescribed handling procedures.
Asset Management Issue 
For project owners, microcracking is as much a module-quality issue as it is an asset-management issue. The challenge underlines the importance of extending quality assurance beyond factory acceptance testing.
Experts point to diagnostic tools such as electroluminescence (EL) testing, which uses near-infrared imaging to identify cell microcracks. EL inspection before dispatch establishes a baseline, but inspections after delivery or installation can help determine when the damage occurred.
An analysis of I-V curves provides additional diagnostics. Interruptions in each current path may be indicated by abnormal current-voltage characteristics of a module. Operators can then focus on the relevant modules.
As a result, it is important to keep records of module condition at various stages of the supply chain if responsibility for any failures is to be determined. Evidence can be obtained later when defects appear from transportation conditions, unloading methods, storage practices, installation records, and diagnostic tests carried out at the commissioning stage.
Maintaining records of module condition at different stages of the supply chain is critical to assign responsibility for failures. Transportation conditions, unloading procedures, storage practices, installation records, and commissioning-stage diagnostic tests can provide evidence when defects emerge later.

Solar Module Microcracks Raise Performance, Warranty Risks

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/amazon_polly_104895.mp3?version=1789020067">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>Recent market movements and policy developments in China are likely to affect India’s solar cell manufacturers.
As per <a href="https://www.metal.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Shanghai Metals Market</a>, Chinese M10 wafer spot prices rose about 33% to around $0.16/piece as of September 9, 2026, from about $0.12/piece in July. G12 wafer prices increased about 4% to around $0.17/piece from $0.163/piece in August.
Prices could face further pressure due to China’s <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/china-to-scrap-export-vat-rebates-for-solar-products-from-april-1-2026-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abolition</a> of the value-added tax (VAT) export rebate for photovoltaic and other related products, effective April 1, 2026.
Rising wafer prices also align with China’s involution law, invoked to stabilize solar prices. In January 2026, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/chinas-market-regulator-steps-in-to-stabilize-solar-pricing" target="_blank" rel="noopener">issued</a> compliance guidance in Hefei, Anhui Province, to regulate the order of price competition in the solar photovoltaic industry. SAMR highlighted that low-quality competition and homogeneous, repetitive capacity expansion have led to widespread profitability issues.
India-specific factors are also adding to demand. The country’s push to implement the Approved List of Models and Manufacturers for solar cells (ALMM List-II) could increase demand for imported wafers from domestic cell manufacturers.
Currently, India has about 215.5 GW of <a href="https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAEShgEB6zswFYkkEtxjz5XtX4a3n5cCLXd_jfKBXTVjqgv2y6z-JqhEDcnkuRhmt3ru-q_y1fmKNmBByoMcu0--f8fI2GOUtFYURpcANjCdGgVOY3zVWKjXYQddLzl1CDdePHb2ktGyXbblZSSbQVo9jkJUkcctIQ8FhWp23_5syARJxH0uN4l6QQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener">module</a> manufacturing capacity enlisted under the ALMM framework, compared with 35.5 GW of enlisted <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/solar-cell-capacity-under-almm-grows-to-39-4-gw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cell</a> manufacturing capacity.
The increase in wafer prices is also beginning to show up in domestic content requirement (DCR) cell prices. DCR cell prices have risen to ₹14.462 (~$0.152)/W for Mono PERC cells and ₹15.731 (~$0.165)/W for TOPCon cells.
However, the increase has been more gradual at the cell level. In Q2 2026, Mono PERC DCR cell prices stood at ₹14.4 (~$0.15)/W and TOPCon prices at ₹15.6 (~$0.164)/W, compared with ₹14.365 (~$0.15)/W and ₹15.402 (~$0.162)/W, respectively, in Q1 2026.
This translates into increases of about 0.4% for mono PERC and 0.8% for TOPCon from Q2 to current levels, and approximately 0.7% and 2.1%, respectively, compared with Q1 2026.
Domestic cell prices have therefore remained on an upward trajectory, reflecting their exposure to both domestic policy-driven demand and volatility in the global upstream solar supply chain.
Internationally, the U.S. is <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/us-imposes-15-tariff-on-polysilicon-derivatives-sets-solar-import-prices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">imposing</a> an additional 15% tariff on certain polysilicon products and establishing minimum import prices for polysilicon, wafers, solar cells, and modules, effective December 4, 2026, regardless of country of origin. The U.S. has revised minimum import prices to $21/kg for polysilicon, $100/kg for polysilicon ingots and wafers, $0.22/W for solar cells, and $0.38/W for modules.

Rising Chinese Wafer Prices May Hit Indian Solar Cell Manufacturers

<table id="amazon-polly-audio-table">
						<tr>
						<td id="amazon-polly-audio-tab">
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-label">Listen to this article</div>
							<div id="amazon-ai-player-container">
			<audio class="amazon-ai-player" id="amazon-ai-player" preload="none" controls controlsList="nodownload" >
				<source type="audio/mpeg" src="https://cms.mercomindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/amazon_polly_104416.mp3?version=1788851951">
			</audio>
		</div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-subscribe-tab"></div>
							<div id="amazon-polly-by-tab"></div>
						</td>
						</tr>
					</table>Changes to banking regulations, settlement mechanisms, and open access charges across states are altering the economics of renewable power procurement for commercial and industrial (C&amp;I) consumers, according to developers operating in the segment.
The impact is particularly visible in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, where restrictions on banking and time-of-day (ToD) settlement are reducing the flexibility available to consumers to match renewable generation with their electricity demand.
The changes come as India&#8217;s solar open access market continues to expand. India added nearly 6 GW of solar open access capacity in the first half of 2026, up 42% year-over-year from 4 GW. Cumulative installed capacity reached 36 GW as of June 2026, according to Mercom India&#8217;s <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/india-solar-open-access-capacity-up-6-gw-in-1h-2026" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Q2 2026 India Solar Open Access Market Report</a>.
However, savings for C&amp;I consumers have come under pressure. Mercom previously <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/rising-landed-costs-shrink-savings-for-solar-open-access-consumers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that rising power purchase agreement tariffs and regulatory charges were increasing the landed cost of solar open access across most states.
Tamil Nadu Banking Changes
Tamil Nadu&#8217;s Green Energy Open Access Regulations, 2025, <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/tamil-nadu-notifies-green-energy-open-access-regulations-2025?" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> an 8% banking charge for solar and wind projects and monthly settlement of banked energy.
Developers say mandatory monthly settlement means surplus energy can no longer be carried forward annually. Unutilized energy at the end of the month is settled with the distribution licensee at 75% of the applicable tariff.
They estimate that the changes add roughly ₹0.05 (~$0.0005)/kWh to the landed solar tariff, reducing savings for C&amp;I consumers.
The effect could be greater for wind projects because generation is seasonal and may not correspond with monthly consumption. Developers said eliminating banking for third-party wind open access projects could reduce potential contract sizes by up to 30%.
Restrictions on ToD banking create another constraint because energy generated during off- peak periods cannot be adjusted against consumption during peak periods. The resulting mismatch increases the importance of matching generation with a consumer&#8217;s load profile.
Industry insiders say monthly banking provisions and ToD slot restrictions are reducing flexibility for C&amp;I consumers with higher evening demand.
Solar plus storage configurations are consequently becoming more relevant for managing energy consumption and reducing purchases of peak-hour grid electricity.
Captive and group captive structures remain favorable because of cross-subsidy surcharge exemptions, but accurate project sizing and generation-consumption matching have become increasingly important. The banking framework also requires closer forecasting and 15-minute settlement management.
The regulatory changes are also affecting procurement decisions.
Several C&amp;I consumers in Tamil Nadu are taking longer to finalize renewable power procurement because of uncertainty surrounding banking policies and settlement mechanisms.
They are seeking greater regulatory clarity before signing long-term power purchase agreements, particularly for projects scheduled for commissioning in 2026. Rising grid tariffs continue to support interest in solar open access, but uncertainty over savings projections has lengthened decision-making cycles.
Mercom previously found that open access solar growth had <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/open-access-solar-growth-slows-in-maharashtra-and-tamil-nadu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">slowed</a> in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, with banking and tariff reforms influencing market activity in both states.
Maharashtra Restricts Time Shifting
Developers have raised similar concerns over the changing economics of open access in Maharashtra.
The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/maharashtra-revises-energy-banking-rules-in-modified-multi-year-tariff-order" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revised</a> its energy banking framework earlier this year, restricting the withdrawal of banked energy based on ToD slots.
Stakeholders say the same slot banking restrictions have reduced the flexibility previously available through grid-based energy adjustment.
Solar generation credits are restricted to corresponding daytime consumption periods, making storage more relevant for industries operating during the evening or at night.
Grid support charges and other grid-related costs can further affect project economics. Changes in banking rules and ToD structures are also requiring revisions to PPAs, financial models, energy scheduling, and investment assumptions.
Maharashtra&#8217;s revised multi-year tariff and ToD tariff structures could reduce open access savings because lower DISCOM tariffs during certain periods narrow the difference between grid electricity and open access power.
Solar open access tariffs could increase from ₹3 (~$0.0315) to ₹3.2 (~$0.0337)/kWh previously to ₹3.75 (~$0.0394) to ₹4 (~$0.0421)/kWh.
Developers also cite restrictions on time-slot settlement, rising open access charges, and upfront cross-subsidy surcharges as pressures on captive consumers and project developers. They contend that open access charges must remain within 20% of the applicable DISCOM tariff to support long-term project viability.
Mercom found that the same slot-banking restrictions could affect the internal rate of return of solar open access projects by changing the savings assumptions used when projects were developed.
Storage Gains Relevance
Changes in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra are increasing the relevance of battery energy storage because consumers can no longer rely on banking to the same extent to manage differences between renewable generation and electricity consumption.
Storage allows solar electricity generated during the day to be shifted to periods when consumer demand and grid tariffs are higher.
Storage-linked contracts and stronger demand management are becoming more important as developers and consumers adjust PPAs and energy schedules to the revised banking structures in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.
Hybrid projects combining solar and wind can provide another option by producing electricity across a broader portion of the day.
Lower Charges Improve Economics Elsewhere
The regulatory direction differs in Odisha and Haryana, where reductions in some open access charges are improving renewable power economics for industrial consumers.
In Odisha, developers referred to reductions in cross-subsidy surcharges of approximately 10% for TPCODL, 58% for TPNODL, and 4% for TPSODL. Consumers also benefit from a ₹0.50 (~$0.0052)/kWh concession on electricity duty and a 50% exemption on cross-subsidy surcharge.
In Haryana, developers cited a 2% reduction in cross-subsidy surcharge, a 20% reduction in transmission charges, and a 29% reduction in wheeling charges for C&amp;I consumers.
However, timely DISCOM approvals for wheeling and banking remain bottlenecks in both markets.
Gujarat has also recently reduced the cost of banking renewable energy. In August, the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission <a href="https://www.mercomindia.com/gujarat-cuts-green-energy-open-access-banking-charges-to-%E2%82%B91-kwh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reduced</a> green energy open access banking charges to ₹1 (~$0.0105)/kWh for the period from September 1, 2026, to March 31, 2027.
The differences among states mean the PPA tariff alone does not determine the savings available to an open access consumer.
Banking charges, cross-subsidy surcharge, transmission and wheeling charges, grid support charges, electricity duty, ToD tariffs, settlement periods, and the treatment of surplus electricity all affect the final landed cost.

industry-insight

Get the most relevant India solar and clean energy news.

RECENT POSTS