Solar plants can be built within a year, but transmission lines take up to two-and-a-half years.
The mismatch between generation and evacuation is delaying projects and causing renewable energy curtailment.
Land acquisition, forest clearances, and right of way remain major bottlenecks for transmission expansion.
EPTA calls for transmission planning to start a year before solar projects are awarded.
State-level “war-room” monitoring could help speed up project approvals and execution.
India’s renewable energy ambitions are facing a critical bottleneck — solar plants can come up quickly, but it can take twice as long to build the lines that carry their power. The mismatch is straining the grid, delaying projects and triggering curtailment across key renewable states such as Rajasthan and Maharashtra. Down To Earth’s Puja Das speaks with Gyan Prakash Upadhyaya, Director General of the Electrical Power Transmission Association of India (EPTA), about challenges in power evacuation in the country.
Puja Das (PD): What causes delays in laying transmission lines?
Gyan Prakash Upadhyaya (GPU): Since transmission lines pass through varied geography — towns, forests, rivers, tribal areas — every kilometre poses a new challenge. They often face unforeseen issues such as land acquisition, right of way (RoW) problems, environmental clearances, and wildlife or tribal concerns. These are genuine issues and unless resolved, they can cause significant delays. But it’s never intentional because any delay leads to financial losses.
Sometimes, the power generation project is nearing completion, but the transmission infrastructure isn't ready to evacuate the power. Regarding alignment between renewable energy (RE) project commissioning and transmission, you're absolutely right. Solar plants typically get built in about 12 months, while transmission lines can take two to two-and-a-half years due to the various clearance and land acquisition issues mentioned.
Wind projects, by comparison, take slightly longer than solar — maybe 15 to 18 months, depending on terrain and infrastructure requirements — but still significantly less time than thermal or hydro plants, which can take three to five years.
So yes, transmission development must begin at least a year before the solar project is awarded or constructed. That way, both can be ready around the same time. This is not yet happening consistently across India, but it’s increasingly being recognised as a priority.
Additionally, over-concentration of transmission projects with a few entities is also causing delays.
PD: Delays in the commissioning of critical transmission infrastructure and congestion in existing lines are undermining the viability of renewable energy projects in several states. RE curtailment has been particularly noticeable this year, especially in Rajasthan’s solar plants. Why is that?
GPU: Heavy rains and flooding have delayed civil work and tower construction this year. These are genuine and unpredictable issues. However, government agencies and the Union Ministry of Power have been quite supportive. Any fact-based, genuine concern brought to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission or the power ministry is usually addressed.
Other issues include the case of the Great Indian Bustard, an endangered bird. The Supreme Court intervened and formed a committee. Recommendations are being considered and the matter is still under resolution.
Then there are forest and tribal land issues, where getting permissions takes time, or local populations demand higher compensation. RoW is a major challenge, given the length and diversity of land usage across India. Yet, despite delays, almost all issues eventually get resolved; some just take longer than others.
PD: Rajasthan, among major RE-producing states, is the most affected. How is the state different from others when it comes to transmission lines?
GPU: Rajasthan frequently comes up because of its high renewable capacity, but similar challenges exist in Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Thankfully, we haven’t seen any extraordinary or unusual issues in these states beyond the typical ones. State and law enforcement authorities are generally cooperative.
We’ve been pushing for competitive bidding in transmission projects, including intrastate ones. This has led many states to adopt bidding instead of nomination-based mechanisms. It's cost-effective, time-efficient and reduces the burden on state finances, as private players invest and recover costs over 35 years.
PD: What about Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat?
GPU: Parts of Gujarat are affected, but the impact is in the sub-megawatt range. As for Tamil Nadu, I’m not aware of any major transmission issues there. But Kerala has a project currently facing some delays. Again, it's expected to be resolved over time with support from authorities.
PD: How is RE curtailment linked with transmission? Is there a direct connection?
GPU: I don’t think there’s a direct correlation. Curtailment usually results from the nature of RE itself. Solar power peaks during the day, around 1 or 2 pm, but peak demand often comes in the evening, when solar generation drops.
PD: How are transmission companies and EPTA, as the industry representative, addressing the issue?
GPU: Transmission companies are trying their best to meet timelines. After all, a power plant is useless if power cannot be wheeled to where it’s needed. It’s like food produced in Punjab not reaching the people who need it most — it becomes a waste.
PD: Has EPTA sought the central government’s help or urged it to intervene?
GPU: We’ve requested that states replicate the Prime Minister’s project review mechanism at the state level. If Chief Ministers’ offices across all states regularly monitor large transmission projects, just as the PMO does, it can expedite issue resolution. This kind of ‘war-room’ approach at the state level would greatly reduce delays.
We’ve conveyed this suggestion to the states through the Ministry of Power. States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka and Rajasthan have already become proactive. Hopefully, others will follow.
PD: Why is there congestion in existing transmission lines?
GPU: Honestly, I haven’t received any direct feedback from the industry indicating that congestion is a major issue. Occasionally, natural disasters such as floods damage towers, which temporarily disrupt power flow. But those issues get resolved quickly.
Transmission lines have defined carrying capacities. For example, a line might support 250 to 500 MW. If more power is produced, a new line must be constructed. That’s how capacity constraints are managed.
PD: What are EPTA’s key suggestions?
GPU: It’s necessary to ensure that the share of any dominant entity in all ongoing transmission projects (by value) does not exceed 50 per cent. Over-concentration of projects with a single player invariably has the potential to affect their timely completion.
Even if transmission lines are in place, if demand doesn’t match supply, curtailment can still occur. That’s why storage is essential — it allows excess generation to be stored during low demand and released during peak hours.
PD: What should be done to bridge the demand-supply gap?
GPU: This mismatch is why the government is now actively pushing for battery and pumped hydro storage solutions. The Inter-State Transmission System (ISTS) waiver has been extended only for projects with battery or pumped storage. This signals the government’s intention to stabilise the grid using storage.
Developers are responding. For example, IndiGrid has set up a 20 MW battery storage plant near Delhi and is constructing a 400 MW facility near Ahmedabad in partnership with the Gujarat government.
Part of this interview was published in the October 1–15 edition of Down To Earth