Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Towards a just energy transition in Delhi: Addressing the bias in the rooftop
solar market
Dwarkeshwar Dutt a, *, Abhishek Ranjan b
a
School of Public Policy, IIT Delhi, India
b
Renewable, Smart and DSM Projects Division, BSES Delhi, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Delhi’s rooftop solar (RTS) policy was announced in 2016, but RTS has not been adopted as much in the resi­
Rooftop solar dential segment as it has been in the other segments like commercial and industrial establishments. This not only
Delhi makes it difficult for the government to achieve its RTS targets but also raises energy justice concerns as it
India
deprives a large section of the population from benefitting from RTS. Residential consumer segment in Delhi is
Renewable energy
Thematic analysis
quite heterogeneous consisting of sections that differ widely with respect to income, roof space, education and
technological awareness. Thus, an effective dissemination strategy for RTS in Delhi would require customized
interventions, suiting the requirements of these different sections of the residential segment. In this paper, we
provide some suggestions for such interventions. The study shows that for an extensive RTS dissemination in
Delhi, policy makers have to adopt a holistic approach and simultaneously address the financial, political,
regulatory, social and psychological barriers.

1. Introduction is a significant factor responsible for this situation. RTS installations

India’s urban rooftop solar (RTS) potential is estimated to be around
124 GW, of which 38% is believed to be constituted by the residential
segment (Sundaray et al., 2014). While India has made remarkable
progress in the deployment of utility scale solar under its flagship solar
program Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM), the RTS
component of the program ‘Rooftop PV and Small Scale Generation
Program’ (RPSSGP) has slacked, although it has shown some growth
recently (SaiVinay, 2019). At the end of the first quarter of 2020, na­
tional RTS installation stood at a mere 4.6 GW (Ranjan, 2020) which is
far behind the target of 40 GW by 2021–22 (JNNSM, N.D). RTS market
has considerable growth potential and is likely to play an important role
as the utility scale solar faces land and connectivity issues (Sai and
Rustagi, 2019). Several state governments have introduced RTS policies
to contribute to the national target and some of them like Gujarat,
Rajasthan and Karnataka have been relatively more successful than
others in deploying RTS (Harish et al., 2013; Pandey et al., 2012). The
government of NCT of Delhi (Delhi for short) in its 2016 RTS policy set
the target of about 2 GW by 2025 (Delhi solar policy, 2016; see Table 1),
which, considering the current status of installations, is likely to be
missed by a wide margin. Poor RTS diffusion in the residential segment
have so far been skewed heavily towards non-residential i.e. commercial
and industrial (C&I) consumers. Having to cross-subsidize the disad­
vantaged section and possessing the financial capacity to adopt a rela­
tively expensive technology, the C&I segment views RTS as a cheaper
alternative to partially offset its dependence on the electricity grid.
Further, other factors like possession of an adequate roof space and
higher load capacity entice solar vendors to this segment. In volumetric
terms, the residential segment constitutes a lion’s share of Delhi’s
electricity consumption (see Table 2), therefore, Delhi’s transition to
solar must make inroads into this segment. RTS adoption in this segment
also offers discoms (power distribution companies) significant comple­
mentarities and is crucial for ensuring a just transition. However to
achieve that, various constraints need to be addressed through innova­
tive RTS deployment business models, an adequate regulatory frame­
work and an effective implementation procedure. The models must take
into account the variegated picture within the residential consumer
segment i.e. the socio-economic and geographical contexts of the
different sections within the residential segment. In this study, we un­
dertake a critical evaluation of the efforts already made for residential
RTS dissemination in Delhi and suggest ways to accelerate its adoption.
The methodology and the objectives of the study are given in section 2.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dwarkeshwar@gmail.com (D. Dutt).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112667
Received 28 March 2021; Received in revised form 25 September 2021; Accepted 11 October 2021
Available online 16 November 2021
0301-4215/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667

Table 1 sample was again expanded through snowball sampling, taking care to
Targets under Delhi solar policy, 2016 (Source: Delhi solar policy, 2016). get representation from different segments. The respondents were con­
Fiscal New Cumulative Annual Percentage Percentage of tacted either through email or phone to explain the objectives of the
Year Solar Solar Energy Growth of Peak Grid Total study and those who consented were interviewed. In total, 60 interviews
Energy (MW) (%) Load Electricity were taken from December 2019 to February 2021, 8 with officials and
(MW) Consumption
members of the government, dicsoms and think tanks, 12 with solar
2016 30 35 700 1 0.15 vendors and 40 with RTS users. The authors stopped taking interviews
2017 84 119 240 2 0.56 once they observed saturation in the content and could not get any new
2018 193 312 162 5 1.43
2019 294 606 94 9 2.66
information. The respondents were encouraged to give detailed re­
2020 385 991 63 14 4.16 sponses and the average duration of the interview was around 30–40
2021 285 1275 29 17 5.10 min. The interviews were semi-structured and customized. For officials,
2022 228 1503 18 19 5.73 the interview revolved around the themes of general features of Delhi’s
2023 187 1690 12 20 6.14
residential RTS market, steps taken for RTS′ dissemination, feasibility of
2024 161 1850 10 21 6.40
2025 145 1995 8 21 6.57 various dissemination models, administrative, financial and other
challenges to RTS dissemination and lessons learned. Solar vendors were
asked questions related to their general perception of the RTS market in
In section 3, we understand the rationale for RTS in Delhi and take a Delhi, effectiveness of the government’s RTS program, challenges faced
critical look at its deployment status. Section 4 looks at the co-benefits in RTS installations and the prospects of the RTS market in Delhi. For
available to discoms by residential RTS adoption and critically users, questions were asked pertaining to their motivations for installing
examine the feasibility of, and issues in, the RTS deployment in different RTS, the role of the government’s incentives in their decision making
sections of the residential segment and make some suggestions to and challenges faced in installations. All the users interviewed were
accelerate its dissemination. This is followed by discussion and conclu­ either from the Co-operative Group Housing societies (CGHS) or the
sion in sections 5 and 6 respectively. High/Middle Income Homeowners section as RTS adoption in the Low
Consumption and Low Income (LCLI) section is almost nil. The in­
2. Methodology and objectives terviews were electronically recorded with the consent of the re­
spondents and transcribed. Respondents are given alphanumeric codes
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of to maintain anonymity.
desk research which involved studying relevant literature, newspaper The method of thematic analysis was used in analysing interview
and magazine articles, reports by discoms and think tanks, Delhi Elec­ transcripts. Thematic analysis examines data for the prevalence of
tricity Regulatory Commission’s (DERC) regulations and tariff orders. themes or recurring patterns of expressions and is used commonly for
The information gained in the first phase was triangulated in the second analysing semi structured-interviews (Joffe, 2012; Braun and Clarke,
phase by semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders and also 2006). According to Joffe (2011), thematic analysis is a tool through
provided the thematic points of discussion for the interviews. To get which both, manifest and underlying meanings of the data, can be sys­
different perspectives, a wide array of stakeholders were interviewed, tematically analysed by capturing the nuances people bring to their
consisting of officials from Delhi government’s power department, dis­ expressions. Themes were inductively identified by multiple readings of
com officials, solar vendors, independent experts and consumers from the transcribed data and therefore were not determined by authors’
different sections. Multi stakeholder consultations enabled us to theoretical predispositions (Patton, 1990). Although, this doesn’t mean
consider the issue from various perspectives. Except for the consumer that inductive thematic analysis is done in an ‘epistemological vacuum’.
group, the respondents were selected on account of their expertise in the Researcher’s theoretical and epistemological values are always part of
area and mostly consisted of officials involved in the designing and her research (Braun and Clarke, 2006). However, there was no conscious
implementing RTS policies in Delhi. These respondents were asked to attempt to deductively fit the data into any pre-determined theoretical
suggest the names of other experts. Thus, the study relied on a combi­ frames. The transcripts were coded manually and extracts were analysed
nation of purposeful and snowball sampling. In the case of consumers’ to look for the aspects focused upon by the respondents.
interviews, the details of few consumers were shared by discoms and this The following are the objectives of the study:

Table 2
Consumer data for different discoms (Source: authors’ compilation from different ARR documents).
Discom Segment Monthly consumption slab (no. of units) No. of consumers Sales projections 2020–21 (in MU) Revenue projections 2020–21 (INR billion)

BRPL Residential 0–200 1,279,210 1509 6.1

201–400 704,970 2351 9.8
401–800 335,194 2157 11.5
801–1200 70,244 816 5.3
>1200 40,468 838 8.5
Non-residential – 371,702 3335 39.7
BYPL Residential 0–200 1,066,145 903 10.5
201–400 250,915 1392 4.2
401–800 40,698 1135 4.3
801–1200 3620 360 0.2
>1200 1763 277 0.3
Non-residential – 398,932 1706 20.3
TPDDL Residential 0–200 705,015 1012 3.4
201–400 453,550 1388 5
401–800 248,376 1158 5
801–1200 57,544 408 2.1
>1200 28,207 415 2.9
Non-residential – 300,965 4993 48.2

Note: Consumption slab-wise data for total number of consumers for BYPL wasn’t available in the ARR documents. For BYPL, total number of bills was used as a proxy
for total number of consumers.

2
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667

180

160

140

120

Capacity (in MW)

100

80

60

40

20

0
BRPL BYPL TPDDL Total

Total RTS Installed Residen�al RTS installed

Fig. 1. Total and residential RTS installations for main discoms in Delhi (as on July 31, 2021) (Source: Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Management
Centre website).

500
450
400
350
Capacity (in MW)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30
Year

BRPL(TRTS) BRPL(RRTS) BYPL(TRTS)

BYPL(RRTS) TPDDL(TRTS) TPDDL(RRTS)

Fig. 2. Year-wise projections of total and residential RTS capacity for three main discoms (TRTS – total RTS capacity; RRTS - residential RTS capacity) (Source:
discom reports and consultation with discom officials).

1. To critically examine the initiatives taken so far to disseminate RTS
in the residential segment.
2. To suggest measures for improving RTS dissemination in the
different sections of the residential segment.
3. RTS in Delhi: rationale and a critical look
The constitution of India places electricity in the concurrent list
allowing both the union and the state governments to legislate on the
issue. Thus, active cooperation from the state governments is imperative
for achieving the national sustainability targets. Such an arrangement
provides states with considerable flexibility to develop their energy
policies according to their own needs with supervision and oversight
from the union government. Legislations like The Electricity Act (2003)
mandate governments at different levels to promote the generation of
renewable energy. Moreover, urban centres like Delhi have a high en­
ergy demand (Abosedra and Baghestani, 1989) and are responsible for
consumption of about one-third of the total fossil fuels and about 80% of
all the carbon emissions globally (Vince, 2013). Delhi has also not fared
well in the Sustainable Cities Index (2015) which uses parameters like
energy efficiency and environmental pollution to rank sustainability of
different cities (Sattiraju, 2016). While some cities in the USA and China
have achieved a high level of decarbonisation of their grid (ERI, 2015;
NREL, 2012), the grid in Indian megacities like Delhi is still very carbon
intensive (Kennedy et al., 2017). Thus, urban centres like Delhi, should
be the locus of sustainability experiments.
Delhi is a landlocked region with scarce availability of contiguous
land parcels and has meagre wind and hydro energy resources. How­
ever, Delhi receives an average solar irradiation of about 5 kWh/m2/day
and almost 300 sunny days in a year which, when combined with a
rooftop space of about 31 km2, gives it an annual solar potential of
approximately 3500 million kWh (Delhi solar policy, 2016). Since Delhi
has a high degree of urbanization, RTS is considered to be the most
viable of all renewable energy options in Delhi1 (BRPL). It is estimated
that Delhi can generate about 2 GW of solar power by using 1.6% of its
1
BRPL solar city initiative http://solarbses.com/faqs.aspx

3
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan
available roof space (Engelmeier et al., 2013).
Further, in addition to providing economic benefits to the con­
sumers, RTS adoption offers gains to the discoms too. For instance, RTS
can help discoms in fulfilling their Renewable Purchase Obligation
(RPO) requirements (Rajeshwari, 2018), in reducing peak demands as
Delhi’s day time peak demand curve broadly matches the generation
curve of solar (Delhi solar policy, 2016) and in minimizing overloading
issues in congested areas during the peak summer months (BSES press
release, 2018). The discoms have a considerable advantage in imple­
menting RTS programs as they have direct access to the consumers
through an organised billing system (Lok Sabha unstarred question No.
4128) and were therefore given targets by the Ministry of New and
Renewable Energy (MNRE) for RTS program implementation in Delhi
(Krishan, 2020).
It was believed that falling solar prices combined with better literacy
rate and awareness would help diffusion of RTS in Delhi (Chaudhary,
2016; Engelmeier et al., 2013). However, so far, Delhi government’s RTS
targets have been missed by a long shot. The total installed RTS capacity
in Delhi stands at approximately only 121 MW (PTI, 2020) and has been
skewed towards non-residential segment. For BSES Rajdhani Power
Limited (BRPL), the discom having the largest license area in Delhi, the
installed RTS capacity for residential segment is just 21% of its total RTS
capacity. While for other discoms, BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL)
and TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL), the corresponding
figure stands at 17% and 28% respectively (see Fig. 1). Further, the
future projection of the RTS capacity also indicates low residential RTS
penetration (see Fig. 2), pointing to the need to take some course
corrective steps now. Looking only at the RTS installations number,
some news reports point to a ‘surge’ in the residential RTS uptake (PTI,
2020). However, a holistic look taking into account the relative installed
capacity and the relative number of consumers/connections in each
segment (see Table 2) would show the skewedness of RTS installations.
4. Accelerating RTS adoption: making inroads in the residential
segment
It is generally considered that by turning electricity consumers to
prosumers, RTS expansion would erode discoms’ revenue stream (Cap­
pers et al., 2019; Cai et al., 2013; Eid et al., 2014) although the
co-benefits associated with RTS adoption are beginning to be recognized
as well. Most of the literature on RTS deployment and co-benefits has
come from the western nations, especially the US (Eto et al., 1997;
Satchwell and Cappers, 2018). Developing nations like India differ
considerably from the developed nations in many crucial respects like
public awareness about solar technology, regulatory framework and
several other parameters. For instance, while in mature economies like
the US, utilities will have to adjust to the scenario of greener and less
energy intensive economies in which growth-driven business models
may not be sustained (Sioshansi, 2012), in developing countries, utilities
would have to simultaneously address the growing energy demand as
well as to accelerate sustainability transition in a more just and equitable
manner. Needless to say, sustainable solutions must be in tune with the
contextual realities.
Delhi occupies a unique space among Indian electricity distribution
landscape as it is one of the rare cases where the distribution has been
privatized. Its power organizational structure comprises of two power
generation companies - Indraprastha Power Generation Company
Limited (IPGCL) and Pragati Power Corporation Limited (PPCL), one
transmission company, Delhi Transco Limited and five discoms, BSES
Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL), BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL),
TATA Power Delhi Distribution Limited (TPDDL), New Delhi Municipal
Council (NDMC) and Military Engineer Services (MES) (Delhi Statistical
Handbook, 2017). Out of these five, only BYPL, BRPL and TPDDL cater
to substantial residential, commercial and institutional segments and
thus would be the focus of this paper. Roughly, BYPL serves the eastern
part, BRPL serves western and southern parts while TPDDL’s license area
4
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667
constitutes the northern part of Delhi. In India, non-residential con­
sumers currently dominate the RTS market, accounting for roughly 70%
of the installations as RTS is an important tool for them to offset their
cross-subsidy induced higher tariffs (SaiVinay, 2019). On the other hand
residential segment consumers face considerable financial, operational
and informational challenges hindering the utilization of its RTS po­
tential nationally as well as in Delhi (Engelmeier et al., 2013). The
residential consumers constitute a significant share in terms of numbers,
energy sales and discoms’ revenue and are therefore crucial for discoms’
plans and projections (see Table 2). Lack of RTS adoption here not only
raises energy justice concerns but has also prevented discoms from
realizing the co-benefits associated with RTS diffusion in this segment.
For Delhi discoms, the values of equity and profitability converge in the
residential segment and it is here they should focus their attention
(Kuldeep et al.;, 2019; R1). RTS adoption in the residential segment and
the consequent realization of the associated benefits would require
putting an adequate regulatory environment in place, launching a sus­
tained and directed information campaign and introducing novel busi­
ness models (Kennedy et al., 2017). The residential segment in Delhi is
quite heterogeneous with respect to socio-economic and geographic
parameters and thus different sections within this segment would need
customized interventions for multifaceted and unique challenges they
pose. As electricity providers, discoms provide a crucial link in the solar
value chain (PACE-D technical assistance program, N.D), generally have
consumers’ trust (Dutt, 2020; Kuldeep et al., 2018) and have a close
relationship with the regulatory bodies. Thus, they are well placed to
guide the diffusion of RTS through innovative models. Further, consid­
ering the co-benefits involved, discoms should play a proactive role in
developing, nurturing and promoting such interventions. In the next
three sections, based on multi stakeholder consultations, we make some
customized suggestions for different sections of residential segment and
also point out the possibilities of cross-learning.
4.1. Co-operative group housing societies (CGHS): capturing the low
hanging fruit
The potential of CGHS as a low hanging fruit for residential RTS
diffusion has been well recognized by the government. A substantial
proportion of the total population of Delhi lives in about 2000 registered
CGHS and many of these societies have adequate roof spaces to install
RTS plants to partially meet their power requirements (Mukhya Mantri
Solar Power Yojana, 2018). In the last 2–3 years discoms, along with
other agencies, have launched programs like ‘Solarize Dwarka, ‘Solarize
Safdarjung’ and ‘Solarize Karkardooma’ to scale up and optimize the
RTS installations in areas having good CGHS density. Below, we take
stock of the measures undertaken to disseminate RTS in CGHS, how
challenges were overcome and flag the issues that still persist.
Currently, there are two prevalent RTS ownership models in Delhi –
Capex and Resco. In the Capex model, the consumer pays upfront for
RTS system and gets ownership rights. However, making upfront in­
vestment is difficult for CGHS as many of them either don’t have enough
corpus or if they have sufficient funds available, convincing majority
residents in a CGHS to spend it on RTS can be a difficult task (R1, R8). As
one respondent recalled ‘see we [management committee members]
know that it [RTS] is green and also profitable for us but we couldn’t
convince them [other CGHS residents] in the GBM [General Body
Meeting] to give money’ (R14). The Resco model was introduced to
address this issue. In the Resco model, the developer bears the cost of the
installation and maintenance and sells electricity to the consumer under
a long term (usually 20–25 years) PPA (Power Purchase Agreement).
Among other things, the PPA defines the tariff rate (which is less than
the grid price) at which the consumer will buy solar power from the
developer1. The resco model, introduced and popularized by the gov­
ernment, has addressed the issue of finance to a significant extent.
Several respondents from CGHS admitted that they would not have
considered installing solar in the absence of the Resco model. R16
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan
pointed out that their society members said a ‘flat no’ to the investment
for RTS and the bank loan could not be arranged as ‘there was no col­
lective collateral with society …. so we went for it [Resco model]’.
Another respondent R24 believed that Resco model was ‘very conve­
nient for people like us who don’t have sufficient funds’.
Lack of information among consumers and vendors was also a big
obstacle in the initial stages of the launch of the RTS program. Thus,
discoms initiated a sustained information campaign in the high CGHS
density areas, organizing conferences and facilitating consumer to
consumer interactions to spread awareness about RTS. The information
and awareness campaign has had a considerable positive impact on
many CGHS, especially on those who had little prior information about
the RTS technology. These events also facilitated interactions between
consumers, potential consumers, vendors and officials. For many of our
respondents like R21, R29 and R5, these events were instrumental in
addressing their RTS queries, meeting empanelled vendors and
prompting them to seriously think about installing RTS. R21 found the
RTS conferences as ‘overall very useful’ and helped them to ‘select the
vendor with the lowest quote’. Similarly, R5 who was part of a peer to
peer interaction opined that such interactions are beneficial as ‘doubts
about new technology can be allayed by one of their own [consumers]’.
Discoms also built an information repository on parameters like CGHS’
roof capacity, layout design etc. which helped in alleviating developers’
misgivings by providing a concrete idea about the feasibility of RTS in
CGHS. Also, an official (R52) pointed out that in the earlier imple­
mentation stages, the accuracy of the solar meters offered by the de­
velopers and the lack of awareness among consumers regarding solar
tariff rates created an atmosphere of suspicion among potential CGHS
consumers. This has been rectified as now only discoms are authorized
to put up solar meters and all the aspects of bidding process, including
the tariff rates discovered, are put up in the public domain. During our
interactions, many consumers like R15, R18 and R23 pointed out that
the tariff rates list was very useful in the selection of the vendor.
Though the Resco model is cost effective from consumers’ viewpoint
and several consumers have installed RTS under it, only few solar ven­
dors find it lucrative enough to get empanelled and bid under this model
and thus it offers few choices to the consumers. For instance, in the latest
empanelled vendors list, 20 vendors have empanelled under Capex
category while only 3 under Resco.1 Vendors point out the risk in signing
long term PPAs with CGHS as a major concern. Many vendors are wary
of ‘internal power dynamics’ (R31) in CGHS and fear that after elections
new committee members may not honour the PPA done by the previous
management. Though contracts are protected by law, yet vendors feel
taking legal recourse is a hassle and should be avoided (Dutt, 2020). The
payment risk is further aggravated by the perceived uncertainty
regarding the tariff price and subsidy continuity. Many CGHS claimed
that they were not getting the subsidy and this was creating discontent.
A CGHS member R5 complained about the lack of clear communication
regarding the subsidy. S/he pointed out that they ‘decided to go for
higher tariff because we were promised subsidy. Now we are not getting
it. Other societies knew that they won’t get it [subsidy] so they nego­
tiated lower tariffs. In all this, I am the loser. How do I explain it to them
[other society members]? They [other society members] are questioning
my decision [to install solar]’. In a similar vein, a discom official (R1)
recounted about a disgruntled CGHS member who ‘would call me and
complain that solar tariffs fell after they installed RTS. Tell me what can
I do in this? I don’t control the prices’.
Further, certain CGHS respondents had misgivings about the Resco
model. R11 felt that the organizers of conferences were ‘encouraging us
to go for the Resco model because they would receive kickbacks’, though
s/he also said that the conference ‘provided a boost’ to their intention to
install solar as they didn’t have much information about RTS technol­
ogy. They installed under the capex model. Similarly, R22 acknowl­
edged that conferences were a ‘nice initiative’ but also felt dissatisfied as
there was not enough information to compare the two models. S/he
recalled that one of the audience member asked a question about the
5
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667
relative benefits of Capex and Resco but ‘was not given a satisfactory
answer’. R17 cautioned that ‘if complete information is not provided
about this [Resco model], then it creates an unnecessary doubt in their
[potential consumers] minds.
Another issue promoting suspicion among CGHS consumers is the
relative capacities that vendors are willing to install under different
business models and perceived miscalculation of the RTS capacity of the
roof space in general. Since the Capex model involves upfront payment,
developers attempt to install the maximum possible capacity thereby
maximizing the RTS installation size. However, profitability in the Resco
model requires optimizing the yield from RTS, thus developers tend to
avoid roof regions that would not provide adequate yield. Therefore,
Resco installed RTS size can sometimes be less than the Capex one and
consumers considering both models are often confused. For instance, in
R15’s case the initial RTS capacity was estimated to be 300 KW but later
only 82 KW was found feasible. S/he termed this ’miscalculation one big
disappointment which created unnecessary confusion’. Similarly, R23
pointed out that an earlier estimate in their CGHS was calculated to be
120 KW but 198 KW was installed later on. S/he hoped that there would
be ‘better clarity in the future’ as people in charge of installations in
CGHS have to take other members on board and such confusions ‘add to
their [members’] suspicion’.
For payment security to the vendors in the Resco model, the gov­
ernment should make a provision of tripartite agreement between the
vendor/developer, the CGHS and the discom. Under this agreement, the
developers can sign PPAs with the discoms on the one hand and discoms
can enter into agreement with the CGHS on the other hand. Through
this, developers would save themselves from the issues of direct dealing
with CGHS and since consumers trust discoms more than developers,
they also would be more open to such an agreement. Vendors (R31, R35
and R37) too opined that discoms can play a more proactive role as a
mediator to improve the Resco model’s workability. Discom mediation
would inspire vendor’s confidence in the model and would ‘prompt
more vendors to get empanelled under this model too’ (R34). The RTS
promotion conferences should clearly spell out the relative benefits of
Capex and Resco models for consumers to make informed choice. Along
with this, outreach programs must provide clear information regarding
subsidy continuation and tariff projections. Finally, mandating a
Performance-Ratio (P-R) test for all RTS installations and creating
awareness about this test among consumers would help in objective
relative assessment of installations under different models. Currently, P-
R test is mandated only for the cases that come under CFA subsidy
category.
4.2. Off-site community solar: expanding reach through virtual net
metering (VNM)
CGHS have the advantage of having spacious (albeit common) roofs.
However, many individual home owners and people living in rental
accommodations don’t have (sufficient) roof space but have resources or
inclination to go for solar. In this category would come residential
consumers in monthly consumption slabs higher than 400 units. As one
home owner RTS consumer pointed out that s/he had several friends
who got interested in RTS after seeing his/her installation but they did
not have the roof space. S/he opined ‘you know …. just like organic
products, there should be a system for buying green electricity from
somewhere else …. many of them [his/her friends and relatives] would
like that’ (R19). An off-site installation employing virtual net metering
can be very useful to such consumers. VNM can be useful to allow a
single consumer to install higher capacity system equivalent to aggre­
gated loads from multiple consumers and can provide a greater flexi­
bility in choosing locations of energy production and consumption
(Nexant Inc., 2018). Here, a consumer can either collectively own
(Capex) or buy solar electricity at a predetermined rate from the vendor
(Resco) from an RTS system that is located somewhere else, sometimes
on a public or a government building. Discoms can facilitate aggregation
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan
of demand in such cases to leverage economies of scale for developers
and can also mediate between consumers and developers for smoother
implementation and timely payment by the consumers. Off-site com­
munity solar model would also benefit those CGHS who have the re­
sources and inclination to install more capacity than their roof size
allows. This is especially true for societies with relatively small roof
space. For instance, R21 pointed out that they were not ‘very satisfied’
with their current capacity (40 KW) and would have installed more if
they had more roof space. In a similar vein, R22 lamented that they had
‘utilized their roof space to the maximum’ and if they had more space
they would ‘generate more power and get more benefits’.
Such off-site models could receive a boost by virtual net metering
(VNM) for which guidelines were introduced by (DERC) relatively
recently in August 2019 and thus, so far, no installations have been set
up under this arrangement. Currently, DERC VNM regulations allow
VNM operations to take place within the license area of a particular
discom only. This can prove to be a hindrance in the future when VNM
model is expected to expand considerably. The licensing areas of dis­
coms differ widely in their geographic characteristics and the socio-
economic profiles of their consumers. Therefore, appropriate off-site
locations and interested consumers may be distributed unevenly
across discoms’ license areas. Also, at present, regulations do not allow
for peer to peer (P2P) electricity market which can enable prosumers to
sell electricity to other consumers. The P2P market could be an effective
aid in the development of the VNM market and therefore should be
promoted. Further, outside CGHS areas, the awareness regarding solar is
relatively less due to absence of a large and sustained information
campaign, and has relied mostly on the word of mouth publicity.
To promote the uptake of RTS through off-site model among indi­
vidual home owners with financial resources, the government and dis­
coms should take cue from its RTS promotion program among CGHS and
nurture this section through a sustained information campaign. Suitable
off-site locations like government and other public buildings must be
identified, demand should be aggregated and developers must be invited
for the bidding. As in the CGHS case, the discoms should build an in­
formation repository about various off-site locations, their roof sizes,
layout designs etc. to build developers’ confidence. In addition to this,
regulatory changes need to be made for this model’s wider dissemina­
tion. First, VNM operations must be allowed to be done across license
areas of different discoms to ensure development of a seamless network
of interconnected off-site locations. Second, P2P exchange should be
recognized in the regulations and promoted to make this model even
more lucrative for consumers. However, off-site models based on VNM
alone would not be sufficient to make inroads in the LCLI (Low Con­
sumption Low Income) section (consuming less than 400 units/month)
getting subsidized (or free) electricity.
4.3. Targeting LCLI section: multi-faceted interventions for a just energy
transition
The biggest challenge for an accelerated, equitable and a just solar
transition in Delhi would be the adoption of RTS in the subsidized LCLI
section consuming less than 400 units of electricity per month. This
section is and will continue to be the largest consumer section for all the
three discoms constituting about 71% of BRPL’s, 75% of BYPL’s and
64% of TPDDL’s total consumer base (see Table 2). Thus, this section’s
participation in RTS adoption program is crucial for a just energy
transition. A substantial proportion in this section lacks financial re­
sources, space and incentive to adopt RTS as they are already getting
subsidized or free electricity. This section’s RTS adoption would also
offer significant complementarities to discoms. RTS installations in
congested and cross subsidized low income section would help the dis­
coms in decongestion and reducing their technical losses and would also
reduce the need to cross subsidize the LCLI section, thereby giving DERC
the space to rationalize Delhi’s tariff structure. Tariff rationalization
would reduce the cross subisdy burden on the C&I consumers making
6
Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667
them less inclined to leave discoms. Thus, it would help discoms in
retaining their profitable segment. Similar co-benefits have been real­
ized in some US states (Cross-Call et al., 2018; Blansfield and Wood,
2018).
There are three significant challenges to RTS adoption in this section.
First, there is a very low level of awareness about the benefits ofsolar
technology as consumers here mostly have low literacy level. Further,
since they get cheap or free electricity, there is a lack of incentive to go
for solar. Second, they don’t have sufficient space or financial resources
for RTS adoption. Though off-site solar in conjunction with the Resco
model eliminates the need for upfront payment, PPA’s with LCLI con­
sumers are considered extremely risky by vendors and so far there is
negligible vendor presence and RTS installations in this section. Also,
lack of an adequate capacity in this section makes the Resco model
unsuitable. Third, RTS adoption in this section would require innovative
business models with more active participation from discoms. So far, the
regulatory framework for such innovations has not been put in place.
Thus, RTS promotion in this section would require a holistic approach
with a combination of informational, regulatory and business
interventions.
A way to address the issue of finance is to promote a version of Resco
model in which the PPA is between the discom and the developer only.
Just like in Resco, the upfront payment is made by the developer but the
electricity generated is bought by the discom at a tariff approved by the
State Electricity Regulatory Commission and the consumers continue to
receive the benefits of solar under net metering regulations. The model
offers payment assurance to the vendor, which also enables him/her to
get a loan on competitive terms which ultimately leads to lower solar
tariff. The discom would have to aggregate the demand from multiple
consumers. There are, as such, no regulatory hurdles in operationalizing
this model and the benefits from this arrangement could be passed on
the LCLI consumers. However, it needs to be promoted actively and
vendors need to be taken on board and their concerns addressed. An
outreach program similar to the one launched for the CGHS is required.
Another novel approach to disseminate RTS in the LCLI section is direct
ownership of RTS by discoms which is being experimented by the util­
ities in some of the US states (Barbose and Satchwell, 2020). Discom
officials recognize the benefits of this model, especially for low income
areas like slums. As an official R-1 pointed out, ‘as a discom I want
everyone, even low income consumers, to benefit from solar and this
model would work well for areas where losses are high … more than
30%’. RTS in several LCLI areas would offer co-benefits of decongestion
and better load management to the discoms and the returns from direct
ownership can be put in systems strengthening.
However, the model’s successful implementation would require an
adequate regulatory framework to be put in place and as of now, discom
ownership model is not recognized in the regulations. The regulatory
framework sees RTS primarily as a power source and not as a system
strengthening tool, which doesn’t totally capture the co-benefits of this
model for LCLI section. In addition to this, the process of selecting lo­
cations and beneficiaries and the disbursal of benefits have to be thought
about in detail in the regulations as well (R1). For instance, a concern
flagged in the literature is that discoms have a lot of sensitive consumer
information, some degree of control over pricing and closer connection
with the regulatory agencies which vendors don’t have and this can
provide the discoms with an unfair advantage (Solar nation, N.D).
Considering such concerns, utility ownership projects in New York and
Arizona are focusing mainly on the underserved or low income section
(Farrell and Aaberg, 2019). A similar limitation can be put in Delhi’s
context too.
Finally, an information campaign in this section is imperative.
However, instead of just focusing on the immediate benefits of RTS like
electricity bill reduction, as in the case of the other sections, for this
section, RTS must be contextualized in the bigger picture of electricity
subsidy and long term benefits. As this section has access to cheap/free
subsidized power, bill reduction won’t provide a sufficient incentive and
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667

Table 3
Summary table (Source: authors).
Section of Advantages Challenges Suitable model Actions taken Outstanding issues Suggestions
residential
segment

CGHS Mostly adequate roof Financial Resco (on CGHS common Information and Resco model still Explore possibility of
space constraints for roofs) outreach campaign considered risky by tripartite PPA
Mostly geographically upfront payment Peer to peer vendors Provide detailed cost-
close allowing peer to Information interaction program Perceived lack of benefit analysis for Capex-
peer interaction asymmetry Resco model information for Resco comparison
Good RTS awareness promotion with Capex-Resco Mandating P-R test for all
reasonable tariff comparison installations
structure CGHS discontent Clear communication
Streamlined with calculation of regarding subsidy and
technical issues RTS capacity tariff
Discontent about
subsidy and solar
tariffs
High/middle Availability of finance Lack of roof space Off-site community solar VNM guidelines for No installations so far Sustained campaign to
income home Good RTS awareness off-site model under this model popularize the model
owners introduced VNM restricted to a Regulation to allow inter-
CGHS single license area discom and P2P power
dissatisfied with No regulation on P2P exchange
current capacity electricity market
LCLI Provides substantial co- Lack of financial Discoms’ RTS ownership Model proposed to Discom’s monopoly Regulations to restrict the
benefits to discoms resources and third party model regulatory bodies by concerns model to LCLI section only
Important from energy Lack of awareness combined with off-site discoms Selection of Framework to prioritize
justice perspective No roof space community solar beneficiaries areas and beneficiaries
No incentive due Persuading LCLI Sustained campaign and
to cheap/free consumers peer to peer dialogue to
electricity persuade consumers
View RTS as system
strengthening tool

because of low technological awareness in this section, demonstration
projects and people to people interaction would assume a greater role
here than the CGHS. A useful step would be to involve environmental
NGOs, which have established close connections with communities, to
promote RTS.
5. Discussion
The RTS adoption in the residential segment, especially the LCLI
section, is a must for accelerating towards a just energy transition and
for exploring the co-benefits for discoms. However, so far, RTS adoption
in Delhi has been slow and skewed towards C&I segment. Residential
segment in Delhi is quite heterogeneous in terms of consumer profile,
energy sales and other parameters and thus, a customized approach
would be required for different sections of this segment (see Table 3).
Due to a sustained information campaign and high literacy levels, CGHS
consumers now have adequate knowledge about RTS′ benefits and issues
of finance in this section were addressed through promoting the Resco
model. However, the issues that need to be addressed here pertains to
vendors’ perception of the Resco model as risky and consumers’
perception of it not being profitable enough. In addition, more infor­
mation regarding relative benefits of the Capex and Resco models is
needed. For unsubsidized consumers in the >400 units/month slab, the
main issue is of lack of adequate space which should be addressed
through promotion of off-site solar model employing VNM. Regulatory
obstacles hindering smooth implementation of VNM must be removed.
Finally, for LCLI section, a holistic approach requiring innovative busi­
ness models, information outreach campaign and novel regulations
would be needed as this section is not only financially and spatially
disadvantaged but also lacks incentive for RTS adoption because they
get subsidized power.
6. Conclusion and policy implications
RTS dissemination in Delhi has been slow but steadily gaining
ground. The government’s decision to start with CGHS having adequate
roof space has helped RTS in gaining traction but much more needs to be
done for widespread dissemination of RTS to all the sections of the
residential segment. This study’s aim was to understand the issues
plaguing RTS adoption in the residential segment and suggest section
specific measures to address the same. Our study shows that RTS
adoption in the variegated residential consumer segment requires
customized policy solutions as different sections in this segment pose
different challenges For the CGHS section, priority of the policy planners
should be to reduce the risk perception of the Resco model among solar
vendors by exploring the possibility of tripartite PPA and ensuring clear
communication about the subsidy to the consumers. For high and mid­
dle income home owners, awareness campaign and effective oper­
ationalizing of VNM is the need of the hour. For LCLI section, a holistic
policy approach, involving innovative business models and regulatory
structures, is needed to address to ensure RTS adoption.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Dwarkeshwar Dutt: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Abhishek Ranjan: Conceptualization, Data curation,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Indian Department of Sci­
ence and Technology for its generous financial support through the IIT
Delhi DST Center for Policy Research. The authors are also grateful to
Professor Ambuj D. Sagar (Head, School of Public Policy, IIT Delhi) and
Dr. S. Natesh (DST-Centre for Policy Research, IIT Delhi) for their
valuable guidance.

7
D. Dutt and A. Ranjan Energy Policy 160 (2022) 112667

References Kennedy, C., Stewart, I.D., Facchini, A., Mele, R., 2017. The role of utilities in developing
low carbon, electric megacities. Energy Pol. 106, 122–128.
Krishan, S.S.E.P.L., 2020. Solar Subsidy in Delhi for Residential and Group Housing
Abosedra, S., Baghestani, H., 1989. New evidence on the causal relationship between
Societies. https://www.solarsmiths.com/blog/knowledge/solar-subsidy-in-delhi-for
United States energy consumption and gross national product. J. Energy Dev. 14 (2),
-residential-and-group-housing-societies/.
285–292.
Kuldeep, N., Ramesh, K., Tyagi, A., Saji, S., 2019. Valuing Grid-Connected Rooftop Solar:
Barbose, G., Satchwell, A.J., 2020. Benefits and costs of a utility-ownership business
A Framework to Assess Cost and Benefits of Rooftop Solar to Discoms. Council on
model for residential rooftop solar photovoltaics. Nat. Energy 5 (10), 750–758.
Energy, Environment and Water.
Blansfield, J., Wood, L., 2018. The Role of Electric Companies in Providing Distributed
Kuldeep, Neeraj, Selna, Saji, Chawla, Kanika, 2018. Scaling Rooftop Solar: Powering
Energy Resources and Other Energy Services. Edison Foundation Institute for
India’s Renewable Energy Transition with Households and DISCOMs. Council on
Electric Innovation).
Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi.
BRPL, N.D.. BRPL’s solar city initiative. BRPL.
Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 4128 answered on 12.12.2019.
BSES press release, 2018. Delhi CM Inaugurates 500 KW of Rooftop Solar Plants in
Mukhya Mantri Solar Power Yojana, 2018. http://web.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/
Dwarka. https://www.bsesdelhi.com/documents/55701/60418709/Press_Release
DOIT_EEREM/eerem/home. (Accessed 18 April 2020) accessed.
_04aug18_Eng.pdf.
Nexant Inc., 2018. Case Study on Virtual Net-Metering. USAID. https://www.pace-d.
Cai, D., Adlakha, S., Low, S., DeMartini, P., Chandy, K., 2013. Impact of residential PV
com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Case-Study_Virtual-Net-Metering.pdf.
adoption on retail electricity rates. Energy Pol. 62, 830–843.
NREL, (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures
Cappers, P., Satchwell, A., Gorman, W., Reneses, J., 2019. Financial impacts of net-
Study. Department of Energy, US.
metered distributed PV on a prototypical western utility’s shareholders and
PACE-D technical assistance program. N.D. https://www.pace-d.com/wp-content/uplo
ratepayers. Energies 12, 4794.
ads/2018/02/Utility-Centric-Business-Models-for-Solar-Rooftop-Projects.pdf.
Chaudhary, J., 2016. Residential Solar Rooftop Systems Fail to Shine in India. https://scr
Pandey, S., Singh, V.S., Gangwar, N.P., Vijayvergia, M.M., Prakash, C., Pandey, D.N.,
oll.in/article/815734/residential-solar-rooftop-systems-fail-to-shine-in-india.
2012. Determinants of success for promoting solar energy in Rajasthan, India.
Cross-Call, D., Gold, R., Guccione, L., Henchen, M., Lacy, V., 2018. Reimagining the
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (6), 3593–3598.
Utility: Evolving the Functions and Business Model of Utilities to Achieve a Low-
PTI, 2020. Delhi power discoms see surge in residential rooftop solar power connections.
Carbon Grid. Rocky Mountain Institute).
Mint. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/delhi-power-discoms-see-surge-in-r
Delhi solar policy, 2016. http://ipgcl-ppcl.gov.in/documents/renewable/2016_08_0
esidential-rooftop-solar-power-connections-11596364277814.html.
3_6_Delhi_Solar_Policy.pdf.
Rajeshwari, A., 2018. Delhi’s BSES Launches Solar City Initiative to Boost Rooftop
Delhi Statistical Handbook, 2017.
Installations. https://mercomindia.com/delhis-bses-launches-solar-city-initiative/.
Dutt, D., 2020. Understanding the barriers to the diffusion of rooftop solar: a case study
Ranjan Rakesh, 2020. Top States for Rooftop Solar Installations. Mercom India. https://
of Delhi (India). Energy Pol. 144, 111674.
mercomindia.com/top-states-rooftop-solar-installations-infographics/.
Eid, C., Guillén, J.R., Marína, P.F., Hakvoort, R., 2014. The economic effect of electricity
Sai, Siddhartha N., Vinay, Rustagi, 2019. India Solar Rooftop Market. Bridge to India
net-metering with solar PV: consequences for network cost recovery, cross subsidies
report.
and policy objectives. Energy Pol. 75, 244–254.
Satchwell, A., Cappers, P., 2018. Recent developments in competition and innovation for
Engelmeier, T., Anand, M., Khurana, J., Goel, P., Loond, T., 2013. Rooftop Revolution:
regulated electric utilities. Util. Pol. 55, 110–114.
Unleashing Delhi’s Solar Potential. Greenpeace India.
Sattiraju, N., 2016. New Delhi and Mumbai Are Two of the Least Sustainable Cities in the
ERI, 2015. China 2050 High Renewable Energy Penetration Scenario and Roadmap
World. https://yourstory.com/2016/09/new-delhi-mumbai-sustainability/.
Study. ERI.
Sioshansi, F.P., 2012. Why the time has arrived to rethink the electric business model.
Eto, J., Stoft, S., Belden, T., 1997. The theory and practice of decoupling utility revenues
Electr. J. 25 (7), 65–74.
from sales. Util. Pol. 6, 43–55.
Solar nation. Utility owned rooftop solar PV – pros and cons. N.D. https://www.solar
Farrell, John, Aaberg, Alden, 2019. Utilities Bid to Own Rooftop Solar Even as They
-nation.org/utility-owned-rooftop-solar-pv-pros-and-cons.
Oppose it. https://ilsr.org/utilities-bid-to-own-rooftop-solar-even-as-they-oppose-
Sundaray, S., Mann, L., Bhattacharjee, U., Garud, S., Tripathi, A.K., 2014. Reaching the
it/.
Sun with Rooftop Solar. The Energy and Resources Institute, New Delhi.
Harish, S.M., Iychettira, K.K., Raghavan, S.V., Kandlikar, M., 2013. Adoption of solar
The Electricity Act, 2003. http://www.cercind.gov.in/Act-with-amendment.pdf.
home lighting systems in India: what might we learn from Karnataka? Energy Pol.
Vince, G., 2013. Future - How to Power the Urban Revolution. http://www.bbc.com/fut
62, 697–706.
ure/story/20130418-how-to-powerthe-urban-revolution.
Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission JNNSM (N.D.). https://www.seci.co.
in/upload/static/files/mission_document_JNNSM(1).pdf.