SARAL

SARAL
STATE ROOFTOP SOLAR ATTRACTIVENESS INDEX

(FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2018-19)
SARAL
State Rooftop Solar
Attractiveness Index
(for the financial year 2018-19)
1
1 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 2
Acknowledgement
The transition towards solar as a source of energy has become one of the
major initiatives undertaken by the Government of India (GoI). The “SARAL –
State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index” has been designed collaboratively
by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Shakti Sustainable
Energy Foundation (SSEF), Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry
of India (ASSOCHAM) and Ernst & Young (EY).
Along the tenure of the initiative, the team has received significant guidance and
inputs from important stakeholders. We are grateful to Shri R.K. Singh (Hon’ble
Minister of State for Ministry of Power and Ministry of New & Renewable Energy
(Independent Charge)) for his invaluable inputs and motivation to the team. We
sincerely express our gratitude to Shri Anand Kumar (Secretary, MNRE) and Shri
Praveen Kumar (Additional Secretary, MNRE) for constantly guiding the exercise
and supporting the team at all stages. We sincerely thank Shri Aujender Singh
(Deputy Secretary, MNRE), Shri Hiren Borah (Scientist C, MNRE) for providing
pertinent inputs for the development of the Index.
In addition, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to Shri R P Gupta
(Additional Secretary, NITI Aayog) and his entire team for their closely reviewing
the index and providing extensive inputs for improvements. Also, we are grateful
to the project steering committee members for regularly informing index design,
development methodology, and outreach strategies. We are extremely thankful
to all stakeholders who participated in regional workshops in Bengaluru, Kolkata
and New Delhi, and to all state government officials who took time to respond to
the team’s questionnaires and provide valuable feedback that helped shape the
SARAL model and finalize the weightages for the parameters.
Finally, we would like to thank all the members of the team who were involved in
the development process at various stages of the initiative. We would particularly
like to acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Deepak Gupta (formerly, Head – Power
Programme, SSEF) who played a key role in designing and guiding the exercise.

Foreword 1
Preface 2
Acknowledgement 3
Contents Table of content
List of figure
List of tables
Glossary
5
7
7
8
The Team 9
Executive Summary 14
1. Introduction to SARAL 21
01
Page no 21 1.1. Context 23
1.1.1. Need for SARAL 23
1.1. 2. Aim 24
1.1.3. Utility and benefits of SARAL index 24
Introduction
to SARAL
2. Approach and Methodology 25
02
for developing SARAL
Page no 25
2.1. Evolution of SARAL 27

2.1.1. The final model 27
2.2. Feedback received from stakeholders 32
2.2.1. Steering committee 32
2.2.2. Regional workshops 33
2.2.3. State consultations 33
Approach and 2.3. Data Selection and Collection 34
Methodology for 2.4. Scoring Process 35
2.4.1. Assigning of weightages 35
developing SARAL 2.4.2. Factors considered for assigning 37
the weightages
2.4.3. Methodology for assigning weightages 38
to the five core drivers
5 2.4.4. Scaling and normalization process 39
2.4.5. Computation of the overall score 40

3. Final results and key takeaways for states 41
03
3.1. Key Learnings 43
Page no 41
3.2. SARAL state scores in five broad drivers 46
Final results and

key takeaways
for states
4. Annexure 1 47
04
4.1. Scoring indicators 48
Page no 47
1. Robustness of policy framework 49

2. Effectiveness of policy support/ implementation 59
3. Investment climate for rooftop solar sector 65
4. Consumer behaviour 69
5. State’s business ecosystem 75
4.2. State consultation and regional workshop reports 81
Annexure 1 4.2.1. State consultation report 83
4.2.2. Regional workshop - Bangalore 100
4.2.4. Regional workshop - Kolkata 109
4.2.5. Regional workshop – New Delhi 116
4.3. Previous SARAL models 123

List of figures
Figure no. Figure name Page no.
1 The stakeholders involved in SARAL 15
2 The members of the steering committee 16
3 The team conducted regional workshops to garner feedback 17
4 The state consultations were held all over the country 18
5 Break-up of India's 175 GW renewable energy target for 2022 23
6 Evolution of the SARAL 27
7 Model refinement methodology 28
8 The final SARAL model 29
9 The data sources for building the SARAL model 32
10 The findings from state consultations 34
11 The data collection and collation process 35
12 The final weightages of the five parameters 36
13 Factors considered for assigning the weightages 37
List of tables
Table no. Table name Page no.
1 Final SARAL ranking 19
2 The SARAL framework 31
3 SARAL state scores in five broad drivers 46

Glossary
Glossary Figure name
AT&C Aggregate Technical and Commercial
C&I Commercial and Industrial
CAGR Compound Annual Growth Rate
DISCOMs Distribution Company
DT Distribution Transformer
EODB Ease of Doing Business
GRPV Grid Connected Solar Rooftop Power Plants
GSDP Gross State Domestic Product
GW Gigawatts
MNRE Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
MSME Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises
NBFCs Non-Banking Financial Companies
NCAER National Council of Applied Economic Research
NREDCAP New & Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.
PAC Public Affairs Centre
PAI Public Affairs Index
PM Particulate Matter
RECAI Renewable Energy Country attractive
ROI Return on Investment
RPO Renewable Purchase Obligation
SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index
SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index
SNA State Nodal Agencies
UDAY Ujwal DISCOM Assurance Yojana
UT Union Territories

The Team
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Government of India
Shri Aujender Singh | Deputy Secretary
Shri Hiren Borah | Scientist C
Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation

Ms. Disha Agarwal | Program Officer, Renewable Energy
Ms. Elisha George | Program Associate, Renewable Energy
The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India

Mr. Kalyan Mukherjee | Sr Director
Ms. Kavita Sharma | Head - Energy & Infrastructure | Project Lead
Mr. Narendra Mishra | Deputy Director | Project Member
Mr. Saurabh Pathak | Executive | Project Member
Mr. Vikash Jaiswal | Executive | Project Member
Ernst and Young LLP

Somesh Kumar | Partner and National Leader | Power & Utilities
Ashish Kulkarni | Associate Partner | Advisory Services
Shuvendu Bose | Ex-Associate Partner | Advisory Services
Kanv Garg | Director | Advisory Services
KJC Vinod Kumar | Senior Manager | Advisory Services
Shikhar Gupta | Assistant Director | EY Knowledge
Priyankar Basu | Project Member
Shreyas Gaur | Project Member
Anjushi Joshi | Project Member
Amit K Gupta | Project Member
Vishal Sukhija | Project Member
Shobhit Pandey | Project Member
Shubhangi Sharma | Project Member
Faris Zulfiqar | Project Member
9
Aviral Agarwal | Project Member
Abhivyakti Vajpeyi | Project Member

SARAL
State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

1
3

Executive summary
With the renewable energy market becoming increasingly relevant to the Indian power and utilities sector,
the renewable energy segment as a whole (and rooftop solar as a sub-segment) is witnessing substantial
interests from entrepreneurs, developers, potential investors, end users and government entities.
Government of India (GoI) is striving to support the rapid scale up of renewable products through several
initiatives such as policy advocacy, financial assistance schemes and regulatory interventions. At the same
time, various states have also adopted state-level guidelines with the aim of creating a conducive ecosystem
for rooftop solar installation. Based on states’ stakeholders’ readiness, availability of natural resources and
state governments’ approach towards rooftop solar, the proliferation has been non-uniform across the states,
creating an avenue for experience sharing and knowledge exchange for the states. At this stage of the sector,
it is, therefore, imperative for the states to exchange knowledge and learn from each other in the journey to
achieve the country’s ambitious target of 40 GW rooftop solar installations by 2022.
With this background, the idea of introducing a platform for knowledge-sharing and inducing healthy
competition in rooftop solar segment among Indian states was envisioned. This platform could depict the
most attractive states, best practices, postive develepments, while highlighting the key improvement areas
across policy development and implementation, consumer involvement, and investment ecosystem.
Thus, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) and its partners decided to introduce a measuring
scale or an index to evaluate and rank all states according to their performance, growth, level of maturity,
policy framework, and implementation environment in the rooftop solar sector. The development of State
Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index – SARAL – will empower state government entities as well as investors
with evidence to make informed decisions.
To comprehensively and realistically assess the performance of rooftop solar sector in all states, five broad
buckets have been identified after extensive stakeholder consultation. These buckets are:
• C
► omprehensiveness/robustness of policy framework
• E
► ase of implementation/effectiveness of policy support
• I ► nvestment climate for the rooftop solar sector
• C
► onsumer experience
• B
► usiness ecosystem
The team identified multiple parameters and sub-parameters to quantify those five buckets, for which data
points have been captured through primary and secondary researches and subsequently mapped to a
numeric scale. Finally, each score has been scaled based on the assigned weightages and an aggregate score
has been computed. Based on the states’ scores, grades have been assigned on the following scales: A++,
A+, A, B++, B+ and B. The exercise has been completed with the help of extensive stakeholder support from
almost all the states and guidance from experts in the sector.

Governing mechanism
T he team adopted a three-tier stakeholder consultation mechanism during the index preparation to gather inputs
and test the parameters being considered so that the final rankings could be as close to the real on-ground picture
as possible. The final weightages and parameters were arrived at by considering the inputs from the following three
stakeholders:
Figure 1: The stakeholders involved in SARAL
The steering committee consisted of experienced

professionals from power sector, state DISCOMs, lending
Steering committee
institutions and developers who debated on the strength of
parameters and their weightages.
Stakeholders
involved EY conducted three regional workshops at Kolkata,
Regional workshops Bengaluru and Delhi where the parameters were
during
SARAL brainstormed and edited.
developments
EY, in collaboration with the regional chapters of ASSOCHAM,

State consultations conducted consultations with the DISCOMS and state
regulators of 28 states to validate the parameters and
understand the weightages to be assigned to the parameters.
1
5

Steering committee
The development of this index was a rigorous exercise and had to consider all physical, technical, political, social,
institutional, and economic factors that favour/impact rooftop solar development in a state. Therefore, SARAL needed a
sounding board comprising experts from relevant fields to ensure that the index is reflective of the real considerations.
For this purpose, a steering committee was formed to provide guidance to the team’s approach in developing the index.
Figure 2: The members of the steering committee
1 Ex. government officials Financers 3
• Dr. Ashvini Kumar • Mr. Pankaj Sindwani

Director, The Energy and Resources Institute Head, Tata Cleantech Capital Ltd
2 Ex. government officials Financers

DISCOM/Developer/EPC
DISCOM/Developer/EPC 4
• Mr. Gireesh Shrimali: Director, Climate Policy Initiative • Mr. Abhishek Ranjan: AVP (System Operations and
Head(Renewable),BSES- Rajdhani
• Mr Toine van Megen: Co-founder, Auroville Consulting
• Mr. Vikas Chandra Agarwal: Director – Distributions,
• Mr. Deepak Sriram Krishnan: Manager- Energy Uttar Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission
Program, World Resources Institute
• Mr. Guru Inder Mohan Singh: President/Director
and COO, DiSPA/Amplus
• Mr. Bhaskar Deol: Founder and CEO, Myenergy
• Mr. Vikas Singhal: Director- Business Development,
Smart Rooftop Solar Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The team sought feedback on the following building blocks of SARAL from the steering committee:
• List
 of parameters
• Weightages
 of the parameters
• Outreach
 plans
• Periodic
 update strategy for SARAL
The steering committee helped establish the guiding principles for this exercise and their inputs and feedback have
made the model more concise, succinct, and centric to rooftop solar. For all the parameters, only scoring indicators
impacting solar rooftop sector have been finalised, where as the ones impacting utility-scalesolar or other renewable
energy sources have been removed.

Regional workshops
The team connected with industry bodies, policy makers and leading rooftop players. For this, ASSOCHAM local chapters
were reached out in three locations - Kolkata, Bengaluru and New Delhi. The process, approach and methodology was
shared with all stakeholders. Soliciting their feedback on the data availability and extent of acceptance level of different
scoring indicators were the other two primary objectives of conducting these workshops
Figure 3: The team conducted regional workshops to garner feedback
Solicited their feedback on the

Three regional workshops at data availability and extent of
Bengaluru, Kolkata and New Delhi acceptance level of different
scoring indicators
The team solicited the

feedback on the building
blocks of the SARAL
The industry bodies shared

State principal energy secretaries
their problems regarding the
and DISCOM top management
application procedure and
officials shared their perspectives
different aspects of net metering
The relative preference expressed

by the attendees of the regional
workshop helped in arriving at
the weightages
1
7
The regional consultation enabled the team to get a perspective of the industry bodies on the identified parameters
across five buckets that would collectively determine the attractiveness of a state to drive investment in the solar
rooftop space. The industry bodies shared their problems regarding the application procedure, different aspects of net
metering, including the roles and the responsibilities of different stakeholders and recommended the representatives
of government to ease the procedures as soon as possible. The relative preference expressed by the attendees of the
regional workshop helped in arriving at the weightages.

State consultations
With a target to extract 40 GW solar energy from rooftop systems, it is crucial to increase the participation of states and
coordination among agencies. A self-sustainable and private-sector driven rooftop solar sector holds key for renewable
energy revolution in India. SARAL is a stepping stone of this journey.
In order to achieve its intended benefits, the visibility and acceptance of the SARAL amongst various industry
stakeholders is of utmost importance. The stakeholders can provide invaluable insights for building the index.
The team reached out to the states to solicit their inputs for developing the index.
Figure 4: The state consultations were held all over the country
Icon Category
In person meeting
Over mail or telephonic discussion
Icon Category
State Electricity Regulatory
Commission
State Nodal Academy
DisComs
Developers
North West Central East South North-East
The team reached out to 86 stakeholders from 28 states to brief them about the project and collect data for the model
through primary research. The inputs from the state consultations were incorporated into the model, wherever feasible,
and were also used to form the basis for assigning the weightages to the five main parameters on which the index model
is built.

Final SARAL ranking
B ased on the states’ score, six grades have been assigned on the following scales: A++, A+, A, B++, B+ and B. Grades
are derived after using a combination of qulaitive and quantitive methods. Top performing state has been assigned
A++ and rest of the states have been assigned remaining five grades.
Table 1: Final SARAL ranking
Ranking State SARAL Score Grades
1 Karnataka 78.8 A++
2 Telangana 72.2 A++
3 Gujarat 67.9 A++
4 Andhra Pradesh 66.1 A++
5 Rajasthan 62.2 A+
6 Madhya Pradesh 58.3 A+
7 Delhi 54.6 A+
8 Punjab 53.4 A+
9 Maharashtra 52.0 A+
10 Tamil Nadu 50.9 A+
11 Chandigarh 48.3 A
12 Haryana 43.3 A
13 Kerala 42.9 A
14 Odisha 39.4 A
15 Jharkhand 37.7 A
16 Chhattisgarh 36.5 B++
17 Goa 31.8 B++
18 Uttarakhand 31.6 B++
19 Assam 29.0 B+
20 Uttar Pradesh 26.5 B+
21 Sikkim 22.8 B+
22 Arunachal Pradesh 21.6 B+
23 Himachal Pradesh 20.8 B+
24 1
9 Nagaland 20.5 B+
25 Bihar 20.3 B
26 Mizoram 20.3 B
27 West Bengal 19.4 B
28 Manipur 19.3 B
29 Tripura 17.7 B
30 Meghalaya 17.6 B
31 Jammu & Kashmir 14.4 B

01
Introduction to
SARAL
2
1

1.1. Context
According to a report by International Monetary Fund The new energy to meet this surge in demand is
(IMF), India is one of the fastest growing economy in the increasingly coming from renewable energy, with solar
world, with a forecasted growth rate of 7.3% in 2019. energy being an important solution to India’s electricity
The country’s road to prosperity is firmly rooted in the sector challenges1.
ability of its power sector to develop at a faster pace. BP
India is making giant leaps in the renewable energy sector,
Energy Outlook 2035 estimates that even under the most
as evident from its consistent rank in top five attractive
modest growth assumptions, India’s growth ambitions will
countries since last three years in “Renewable energy
lead to a 100% increase in energy consumption, thereby
country attractiveness index” (RECAI) report.This is
requiring double the quantity of energy sources.
primarily due to strong support from the central as well as
the state governments.
Figure 5: Break-up of India’s 175 GW renewable energy target for 20222
1.1.1. Need for SARAL
R ooftop solar market in India is witnessing substantial

interest from23entrepreneurs, developers, financial
institutions, development banks, end users, as well
and put in place a robust implementation environment
including introduction of clear and detailed regulations,
strong monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, new
as government entities. Various states have different institutional structures, promote innovative discom-
rooftop solar policies, incentives, metering regulations centric business models., Also, states should adopt the
and rooftop availability. At the same time, their electricity activites that will spread awareness among consumers
tariffs, consumer mix and the robustness of distribution and other stakeholders across the value chain. Some
infrastructre also varies. states in India have progressed quite well. For example,
Cumulative rooftop solar installation as of March 2019 over the last one year, Maharashtra has added more than
is 4.37 GW. This has to grow ten-fold so as to achieve 450 MW of rooftop solar capacity. Delhi has introduced
the target of 40 GW. For this, states must gear up, the most detailed net metering regulations. Karnataka

has launched a comprehensive e-portal that acts as a • R
► obustness of policy framework
single window clearance for all applications. However, • ► ffectiveness of policy support/implementation
E
there are many other states which need to accelerate the environment
deployment of rooftop solar to collectively reach
• C
40 GW by 2022.
• I► nvestment climate for rooftop solar sector
Therefore, a standardised tool that can assess and
evaluate various states for their preparedness to support • B
► usiness ecosystem
rooftop solar deployment will be highly critical.
State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index – SARAL – has 1.1.3. Utility and benefits of SARAL index
been developed as a tool which ranks all states based
on an identified set of parameters that are critical to
T
accelerating rooftop solar deployment. SARAL can he index serves as an important tool to:
highlight best practices, weaknesses and strengths, and
• B
► enchmark development and deployment of solar
act as a knowledge sharing platform among states and
rooftop in states.
help investors identify states attractive for investments
in rooftop solar space.The solar revolution on Indian • I ► dentify states that require more hand holding in
rooftops is gaining momentum with substantial interest terms of policy and investment push.
from entrepreneurs, developers, financial institutions, • I ► dentify investment opportunities.
development banks, end users and government entities.
At the same time, various states have different rooftop • R
► ecognize the states that need financing support
solar policies, incentives, metering regulations, solar for development of solar rooftop.
potential, availability of rooftop area, etc. This warrants • G
► radually, establish a knowledge sharing platform
the requisite for a uniform platform to account for these where the progressive states can share their
parameters and rank states based on their rooftop solar experiences with the other states.
attractiveness. Moreover, GoI also has a firm belief of
having a healthy competition among states to ease The index can accrue multiple benefits to
out the avenues of mutual knowledge exchange and stakeholders such as:
learning in different sectors or economic outlook. Such
Central and state governments can use SARAL to
comparisons give an insight to potential investors to form
long-term strategies and business operations in different • Initiate dialogues with potential investors.
parts of the country. • Attract investment from domestic and foreign players
It is believed that an exercise to evaluate states according as well as from development banks.
to their attractiveness for solar rooftop investments will • Facilitate collaborations with states looking to
induce a spirit of positive competition amongst states and develop their solar rooftop capacities.
encourage them to share experiential learnings. This is
• Compare and benchmark performance of states in
likely to create a more conducive environment for solar
regulatory and ease off setting up roof top projects.
rooftop installations, encourage investment and lead to
accelerated growth of the sector. • Identify areas of improvement, as well as their
counterparts with whom they can engage in
knowledge sharing.
1.1.2. Aim Institutional investors can use SARAL to

• Identify states that need credit.
T he aim of SARAL index is to evaluate Indian states • Measure the impact of financial assistance in terms
based on their preparedeness to support rooftop solar of loans for the growth of rooftop solar.
deployment. The index aims to objectively assess states Businesses can use SARAL to
based on several parameters critical for establishing
• Identify states which can yield better returns on
strong solar rooftop markets. These parameters belong to
investment in solar rooftop.
five broad categories:
• Provide input to their capital budgeting process.

02
Approach and Methodology for
Developing SARAL
2
5

2.1. Evolution of SARAL
An index is an analytical tool that gives the stakeholders insight into the relative position of the subjects, scaled using
appropriate parameters. It becomes a yardstick against which progress can be measured.
Figure 6: Evolution of the SARAL
Study of Preparation Internal Preparation of Solicitation of inputs from Finalization

other indexes of draft model consultation revised model external stakeholders of SARAL model
T here are a number of indices that have gained

importance over the years. These indices underpin
policy developments and help measure the impact of
The parameter list is as comprehensive as possible. Data
has been sourced from:
1. Publicly available documents and databases.

policy changes in different technical fields. International
indices such as The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business, 2. Interactions with multiple stakeholders in each State for
World Economic Forum’s Inclusive Development Index parameters where data was not available.
and Human Development Index of United Nations Any resulting subjectivity has been minimized through
Development Program are widely respected and give the scoring methodology. The subjectivity can be further
countries clear indicators of progress. In India, Central reduced in future iterations if better and more data is
and State governments are adopting the index as a tool available.
for evaluation in various sectors. Some of these are
the Health Index, Liveability Index, Start-up Ranking
Framework and Swachh Bharath Index.
Some indices specific to the renewable energy
2.1.1. The final model
segment are Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness
T
Index, (RECAI), the United States Renewable Energy
he final model has been arrived at after multiple
Attractiveness Index and Solar Power Rocks’ United States
iterations. Please refer to Annexure 1 for details
Solar Power Ranking.
on the iterative process.
SARAL has been developed to evaluate Indian states on In order to realise the intended benefits of the Index, the
different parameters based on their attractivesness for visibility and the acceptance of the index amongst various
the solar rooftop market. The tool encompasses all the stakeholders is of utmost importance. For this, the SARAL
parameters that define solar rooftop market landscape. team solicited inputs and feedback on the model from the
As a result, the tool assigns a grade to each state based steering committee, a sounding board comprising sector
on the overall performance
2
7 of that state. It also provides experts, to ensure that the index is reflective of the real
insights on strengths of a state vis-à-vis other states. considerations. The perspectives and views expressed
during the state consultations and regional workshops
were also kept in mind while refining the model

Figure 7: Model refinement methodology
The fusion of three

schools of thought
into the making of
SARAL
The index should be from The parameters-

consumer’s point of view robustness of policy
with clear actionable items framework and its
Steering Regional
for other stakeholders such committee workshops implementation, should
as policy makers form the main pillars
and investors of the index with less
State importance attached to
consultations business ecosystem
Maintain the sanctity of the model by

eliminating those parameters that are not
directly related to the rooftop solar sector
The key takeaway that emerged from these discussions One such example was the scoring indicator initially
was to include only those scoring indicators that directly termed as “comprehensiveness of net/gross metering
impacted the rooftop solar segment and not the overall policy in the state” but was later changed to “clarity and
solar segment. Another proposed suggestion was to detailing in metering regulations in the state” so as to
club scoring indicators to make the model more compact ensure that not only the quantity but also the quality
without losing its comprehensiveness. The attention to of the metering regulations is captured. Through this
semantics was highlighted so that each parameter and its iterative process, the model was further refined. Finally,
building blocks become all-encompassing. the model consists of five buckets with 16 sub-parameters
and 34 scoring indicators.

Figure 8: The final SARAL model
8
Business ecosystem Robustness of policy framework
scoring indicators have been identified scoring indicators have been identified
to capture consumers’ experiences to capture how policy framework makes
to determine the demand side of the a state attractive as there are subtle
rooftop solar market variations in policy support for rooftop
8
solar across the states
SARAL 7 Effectiveness of policy

support/implementation
framework scoring indicators have been
identified to capture the
Consumer experience ground implementation that is
scoring indicators have been happening across the states
identified to capture consumers’
7
experiences to determine the
Investment climate
4
demand side of the
rooftop solar market scoring indicators have been identified
to capture from an investor’s lens the
investment scenario
Robustness of policy framework Effectiveness of policy support/implementation
How supportive is the exisitng policy and regulatory What is the level of ground-level implementation and
framework for rooftop solar deployment? compliance with the policies?
The policy framework of a state determines the state The effectiveness of policy support/implementation
regulations. It also governs the routes available to bucket highlights how the policy framework actually
prospective prosumers for setting up a rooftop solar translates into the uptake of rooftop solar systems,
system and the financial incentives and non-monetary making them more accessible to the end-users. It
support available to them for this. also takes into account how dynamic and relevant the
framework of the policy is to confirm its effectiveness
Parameters covered under robustness of policy
throughout the tenure of the policy.
framework
Parameters covered under effectiveness of policy
• The level of policy support encompasses a complete
support/implementation
set of aid extended to the prosumer for the setting up
of an rooftop solar systems. • The ease of application, as the name suggests,
captures the ease with which any prospective
• Policy covenants refer to the support offered or
consumer can get authentic information, apply for
limitations 29imposed by the regulatory authority on
setting up a rooftop solar system and the time taken
the prosumer for installing a rooftop solar sytem.
from application to installation.
• The billing mechanism plays a key role in making
• The ease of availing state subsidies indicates
rooftop solar attractive for a consumer or prosumer.
compliance with the incentives process defined in
the policy.
• During the life cycle of the rooftop solar systems,

the user has to consistently interact with the
concerned distribution companies (DISCOMs) for
billing, connecting to the grid, and for completing

the registration procedure of the system. Therefore, Parameters covered under consumer experience
the state of affairs of the DISCOMs is a factor in the • The experience of the consumer is divided into three
quality of experience the user has. chronological phases - before, during and after
• Power offtake attractiveness captures the ground installation of a rooftop solar system to capture the
reality with respect to the net metering payment experience through the journey.
settlement time. • Grid reliability and retail tariffs are considered
• Restrospective changes to the policy impact because solar rooftop is a cost-effective and viable
investments and investors’ confidence. alternative. If the consumers receive unreliabile
electricity at rising tariffs, then the case of installing
• Installed rooftop solar capacity is one of the direct a rooftop solar system becomes stronger.
indicators of the effectiveness of solar rooftop
implementation environment in the state.
Investment climate Business ecosystem
What is the investment scenario and market conditions in What has been the impact of macro parameters such as
the state? political, economic and other business enablers?
The investment climate includes all the factors pertaining Business ecosystem signposts the performance of an
to the monetary competitiveness of the rooftop solar economy, its behavior and prospects. The business
segment in the state and the availability of resources to ecosystem encompasses the economic environment in
back rooftop solar systems. This is pivotal in appraising the states and thus helps ascertain the attractiveness
the attractiveness of a state well-endowed with natural of the state for long-term investments. The parameters
resources and a mature market (comparatively) to drive also determine the presence and strength of the business
the investments since the chances of failure are low and enablers in the states.
the state seems a sure bet to an investor. Parameters covered under business ecosystem
Parameters covered under investment climate • The current and projected economic outlook.
• Ease of financing/securing loans looks at how readily
• The institutional framework and transparency in
is the capital available and how can it be deployed
policy-making and execution processes.
in the state for installing rooftop solar systems at
different scales. • Business enablers account for ease of doing
business in that state and the support framework
• Maturity of the market covers the existing market
that exists in the state for any business.
conditions regarding number of developers, the
industry workforce and the share of C&I consumers All the parameters are described in the table below.
in total GRPV installation to judge the stage in which However, details of each paramater with respect to what it
the market is. measures, rationale for inclusion, mode of measurement,
scoring criteria and data source are given in the
Consumer experience annexure 1.
What has been the consumers’ experience with rooftop

solar value chain?
The experience of the consumer is an important factor
in evaluating the offtake potential of any technology,
programme or scheme. The more aware and accepting
a consumer is, the more likely it is that he/she is going
to adopt that technology, in this case, the rooftop solar
systems. However, the decision is driven by cost-benefit
analysis thus capturing that perspective is equally
important. Consumer experience driver covers this by
measuring the cost considerations made by the consumer,
the ease of installation and the reliability of supply from
the grid.

Table 2: The SARAL framework
Sub-
Parameters Weightage Weightage Descirption Weightage
parameters
Clarity and detailing in metering regulation 25.0%
Availability of other state schemes to promote
Level of policy 25.0%
33.3% solar rooftop
support
Provision of single woindow mechanism 25.0%
Provision of deemed approval process 25.0%
Minimum GRPV system size allowed in the
Robustness of 33.3%
20% state
policy framework
Maximum GRPV system size allowed in the
Covenants 33.3% 33.3%
state
Cumulative capacity of solar vis-à-vis regional
33.3%
DT capacity
Billing
33.3% Permissible settlement time 100.0%
mechanism
Presence of interactive consumer interfaces 33.3%

Ease of Average time taken from date of application to 33.3%
60.0%
application system installation
Ease of availing state subsidies 33.3%
Effectiveness of Power offtake
10.0% Deviation from the stipulated settlement period 100.0%
policy support/ 26.3% attractiveness
implementation
State of affairs
20.0% Credit rating of Discoms 100.0%
of discoms
Impact Instances of retrospective changes to the policy 50.0%

10.0%
of policy The rooftop target achieved so far (in %) 50.0%
Driver
for rooftop 33.33% Share of C&I consumers in total GRPV installation 100.0%
solar uptake
Investment Ease of securing loans 50.0%
16.8% Ease of
climate 33.33% Availability of insurance providers for GRPV
financing 50.0%
projects
Maturity Availability of project developers/installers/
33.33% 100.0%
of market material suppliers
Consumer awareness 43.0%

Pre-
Tariff rise for end consumers 43.0%
installation 30.0%
System Average Interruption Duration Index 8.0%
consideration
3
1 System Average Interruption Frequency Index 8.0%
Consumer During
26.3% 40.0% Ease of execution - from application to installation 100.0%
experience installation
Post-
O&M cost 50.0%
installation
30.0%
experience/
costs Warranty and aftersales experience 50.0%

Sub-
Parameters Weightage Weightage Descirption Weightage
parameters
Ease of doing business index 33.3%
Business
37.5% NCAER economy rating of the state 33.3%
enablers
MSME 5 year growth rate 33.3%
Business Credit rating of the state 33.3%
10.6% Fiscal and
ecosystem Transparency in policy making 33.3%
Regulatory 37.5%
environment Insitutional architecture 33.3%
Economic GSDP per captia 50.0%

25.0%
Outlook GSDP growth 50.0%
2.2. Feedback received from stakeholders

To involve states in development of the Index and to Below is the feedback received from each of these.
provide a platform for dialogue between different
government institutions, industry, think tanks and other
agencies, feedback was solicited from: ►
2.2.1. Steering committee
• Steering committee members
•
Regional workshops
State consultations
T he steering committee was entrusted with the
task of ensuring independence and fairness in the
development process, so that SARAL is comprehensive
and reflective of all the important aspects of
rooftop solar sector.
Figure 9: The data sources for building the SARAL model • The steering committee members deliberated on the
primary purpose that the index must fulfil.
• After extensive discussions, the team came to a

consensus that the index should be from consumers’
perspective. However, it should depict clear
65 % from actionable items for other stakeholders such as state-
secondary sources level policy makers, implementation authorities,
investors, and the industry.
• The members further elaborated that some

30 % from
primary parameters that do not directly affect the consumers
5 % from both source and investors, such as Renewable Purchase
Obligation (RPO) met by a state, can be ignored or
clubbed with other parameters.
Source Data

• They highlighted the need to focus on semantics • Another major challenge is the cost of storage.
and hence proposed to the scoring indicator - Currently, the cost of a rooftop solar system with
Comprehensiveness of net/gross metering policy battery storage ranges between INR90,000-
in the state. Suggestion was to change it to INR1,35,000 per kW (without subsidy). Lower cost
comprehensiveness and clarity of policy for on-site of solar plus storage will drive rooftop solar as it will
grid connected solar. make the consumers more independent.
• They proposed to club a few scoring indicators into • Undertaking such an activity was appreciated
one to make the model more compact without losing because it can help present a holistic view of the
its comprehensiveness. For example, single window solar rooftop attractiveness in the states, making it
mechanism and deemed approval process can be easier for the wider audiences to understand.
clubbed into one.
The three regional consultations were held in
• According to them, scoring indicators with a direct (details in Annexure 1):
bearing on consumer acceptance/experience will
• 1. Bengaluru – 13th July 2018
have a larger impact on offtake potential of rooftop
solar. Therefore, more inclusive scoring indicators like • 2. Kolkata – 17th August 2018
payback period, after sales experience/O&M services • 3. New Delhi – 18th October 2018
need to be incorporated in the model.
• The members also suggested to revamp the

model to list down the scoring indicators in either
2.2.3. State consultations
chronological order or descending order of the
impact or in some other alternative way so that a
O
flow is maintained in the list. ne of the main objectives of state consultations
• They also assigned relative importance to the five was to confirm the validity of five buckets on which
buckets which were then used to determine the the SARAL model is built and to capture the relative
weightages of these buckets. importance of these buckets. Basis the importance
given by different stakeholders, the weightages to these
parameters was decided.
The consumer experience and effectiveness of policy
2.2.2. Regional workshops support/implementation were given utmost importance in
assessing a state for its attractiveness for solar rooftop.
T he purpose of regional consultations was to get a Most states have given either the rank of four or five
perspective of industry bodies on identified five on a scale of five to these two parameters with a few
buckets that collectively determine the potential of a state exceptions. The weightages for these two parameters are
to attract investments in the solar rooftop space. Industry very close with consumer experience at 30% while the
bodies shared their problems regarding the application effectiveness of policy support/implementation at 29%.
procedure, different aspects of net metering including Together these two have a combined weightage of 59%.
roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders and The least important parameter, i.e., business ecosystem,
requested the representatives of government to ease the was consistent throughout all the zones with an overall
procedures as soon as possible. weightage of just 8%.
Challenges identified: The robustness of policy framework has been given an

overall weightage of 18% by the stakeholders. Only a
• Consumer awareness is a barrier. Today, consumers
3 few states have given it the rank of four but no state
are not aware of the rooftop solar systems’ benefits,
assigned it the rank of five. Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and
costs and different models associated with it.
Maharashtra have ranked it one. This shows that this
• Lack of financing solutions is also a major hurdle parameter is moderately important in the overall picture.
market. This needs an urgent attention as upfront
costs are high for residential consumers and many
consumers may not have sufficient liquidity to pay
for system. However, the panel agreed that an easy
access to finance instead of providing subsidies will
be key for rooftop solar systems to take off.

Figure 10: The findings from state consultations
Business ecosystem Robustness of policy framework

• Overall weightage of 8% • Overall weightage of 18%
• With the sole exception of • Only few states like UP,

Haryana, no other states has Chhattisgarh have given it the rank
given it the rank of 3 or more of 4 with non giving it the rank of 5
• A large majority – 80% of the • On the other hand, states like

om state consu
states has given this parameter
gs fr lta Delhi,Haryana and Maharashtra
n ti
the lowest rank of 1 di has given it a rank of 1
on
Fin
s
Consumer experience Effectiveness of policy
• Overall weightage of 30% - support/ Implementation
it is the most important parameter • Overall weightage of 29% -
• None of the states has given it the it has emerged as the one of the
rank of 2 or less most influential parameters
• Over three-fifth of the states • None of the states has given it the
keeps it at the rank of 5 rank of 3 or less
• Gujarat has given it the highest

rank of 5
Investment climate
• Overall weightage of 15%

• Only few states such as Delhi, HP and AP have given it the rank of 3
• None of the states have given it the rank of 4 or higher
• Few states such as J&K and Uttarakhand has given it a rank of 1
2.3. Data Selection and Collection

T he SARAL is the first-of-its-kind in the sector. It is in
a nascent stage. The robustness of data can improve
in future iterations. In this iteration, the data is collected
•
•
Preparation of questionnaires for data collection
Mapping of the stakeholders in the rooftop solar

sector in states
from primary and secondary resources. However, there
were challenges in this process. • Circulation of questionnaires with the relevant
Data was collected from all the reliable and credible stakeholders in the states
sources. The main sources include government sources • Collection of data for all the 29 Indian states and
such as net/gross metering policy/regulations, solar policy two union territories (UTs), either through face-to-
documents, government/SNA’s websites, tariff orders, face interaction, telephonic conversation or e-mail
Ministry of Power’s State Distribution Utilities Sixth communication.
Annual Integrated Rating report, etc.
In the next stage, primary research was conducted for

closing any data gaps and for reviewing/updating the data
collected from secondary sources. The primary data was
collected in the following manner:

Figure 11: The data collection and collation process
Preparation of questionnaires Mapping of stakeholders
Primary research
Data collection
Data re
gap closu
Circulation of questionnaires
Collection of primary data

Desk research
A detailed questionnaire was prepared by the SARAL team, sample of which is attached as Annexure 1.
The meetings or the interviews were guided by the questionnaire and the team analyzed the responses to
derive insights.
Out of the 34 scoring indicators, 22 were collected from secondary sources, 10 from primary sources and the remaining
two were collected and verified from both primary as well as secondary sources. For details, please refer to the
Annexure 1.
2.4. Scoring Process

2.4.1. Assigning of weightages
Parameters 3
5 • Robustness of the policy framework – 20.0% (Wa)
T
• Effectiveness of the policy support – 26.3% (Wb)
he five drivers, the robustness of the policy
framework, the effectiveness of that policy support, • Investment climate – 16.8% (Wc)
the investment climate of a state, the consumer
• Consumer experience– 26.3% (Wd)
experience and the business ecosystem were allocated the
following weights Wa, Wb, Wc, Wd and We, respectively: • Business ecosystem – 10.6% (We)
The sum of all the weights should be equal to 100% (Wa

+ Wb + Wc + Wd + We = 100%)

Figure 12: The final weightages of the five parameters
26.3% 26.3%
20.0%
16.8%
10.6%
Investment Robustness Effectiveness Consumer Business

climate of policy of policy experience ecosystem
framework support
Sub-parameters
The five drivers are further segregated into 16 sub- Hence the effective weightage of any scoring indicator will
drivers. Each parameter in itself is of 100 points. be a function of
The weights allocated to each sub-parameter within
• Weight of the parameter i.e., Wa
a parameter will add to 100%. For e.g., under the
robustness of the policy framework parameter, the four • Weight of the sub-parameter i.e., Wai
sub-parameters will be allocated weights Wai, Waii, Waiii • Weight of the scoring indicator itself i.e., W’1
and Waiv, respectively such that Wai + Waii + Waiii + Waiv
= 100%. The weightage of the sub-parameter – level of Thus, the effective weight of clarity and detailing in net
policy support in the state will be Wai. metering regulations in the overall scoring of the states
will be Wa*Wai*W’1.
Thus, the effective weight of each sub-parameter will be
a function of the weight of both the parameters and the Illustration: The robustness of policy framework has
sub-parameters within the universe of that parameter. By an overall weightage of 20% and the sub-parameter
this logic, the effective weightage of the level of policy measuring level of policy support has a weightage of
support in the model will be equal to Wa*Wai. 33.3%. This means that this parameter accounts for 6.9%
(20% * 33.3%) of the total score obtained by a state in
this model.
Scoring indicator Going to the next level of individual scoring indicators,
The 16 sub-parameters are further divided into 34 scoring the effective weightage of clarity and detailing in net
indicators. These are the measuring rods against which metering regulations comes out to be 20% * 33.3% *
each state will be scored in terms of their attractiveness 25% (Wa*Wai*W’1) which comes out to be 1.6%. In other
for the solar rooftop. Here again, a similar process is words, if the states are scored out of 100, 1.6 marks
followed for assigning the weightage. The weights for of the total will be attributed to the level of clarity and
all the four scoring indicators under the level of policy detailing in net metering regulations that exists in a state
support in be W’1, W’2 to W’4, respectively. The weight of viz.-a-viz. the other states.
the scoring indicator - clarity and detailing in net metering
regulations in the state will be W’1, which is 25% in the
model. The summation of these weights should be equal
to 100%.

2.4.2. Factors considered for assigning the weightages
T he allocation of the weightages has been based

on the amalgamation of inputs received from all
stakeholders. Thus, the final weightage is based on:
• The importance or the relevance of a parameter:
the importance or relevance of a parameter is the
qualitative assessment of the value contributed by
• The inputs from the stakeholders and the subject it in determining the rooftop attractiveness solar of
matter experts: from a methodological point of a state. The value is characterized by the degree to
view, opinion polls focus on the notion of “concern.” which it meets current and potential needs of
That is, stakeholders from the steering committee, the users.
regional workshops and state consultations were • The timeliness of data: the timeliness of data
asked to rank (on a scale of 1 to 5) the main reflects the length of time between the availability
five parameters of the SARAL according to the of data and the event or phenomenon they describe.
importance of each of them in assessing state Another aspect of this is the periodicity of update of
attractiveness for rooftop solar. This allowed all data to reflect the change in ranking, going forward.
stakeholders to express their preferences and
created a consensus for policy action. The weightage • Quality of data availability in terms of coverage,
preferences for the sub-parameters and scoring periodicity and robustness: the quality of basic data
indicators were not solicited in this manner because chosen to build the composite indicator strongly
statistical evidence suggests that if too many affects its accuracy and credibility. Weights were
indicators are involved, this method can induce chosen to reflect the statistical quality of the data.
serious cognitive stress among the experts and can Higher weights were assigned to statistically reliable
produce inconsistencies in the analysis. The details data with broad coverage. However, caution was
are given in the next section. exercised as this method could be biased towards
the readily available indicators, penalizing the
information that is more problematic to identify
and measure.
Figure 13: Factors considered for assigning the weightages
Relative importance of
Richness of data
the particular parameter
Inputs from the

Determinants stakeholders and the
of weightage subject matter experts
Quality of data available

terms of coverage
Timeliness of data periodicity and robustness
3
7

2.4.3. Methodology for assigning weightages to the five core drivers
A s part of the questionnaire, each stakeholder

answered the following question:
These stakeholders were part of one of the following:
• Steering committee
Out of the five drivers, please rank (in a scale of 1 to 5)
according to the importance of each of them in assessing • Regional workshops
state attractiveness for rooftop solar. • State consultations
To arrive at the weights for each of the five drivers, a

Score modified version of the Borda’s scoring rule was adopted
S. no. Bucket/Parameter
(1-5)* for each group mentioned above:
1 Robustness of policy framework • The ranks 1 to 5 were given points of 1 to 5
2 Effectiveness of policy support respectively, that is, rank 1 has 1 point and rank 2
3 Investment climate has 2 points and so forth.
4 Consumer experience • The stakeholders gave a rank to each of the five
5 Business ecosystem (Micro parameters) parameters.
*1 being the lowest and 5
• The points, based on the ranks, for each parameter
being the highest
are summed.
The purpose of this question was to gauge the mind- • The sum of the points for all the 5 parameters were
set of the stakeholders and their perceived importance again added to arrive at the grand sum.
of the different drivers/parameters with respect to the • For each parameter, its sum was divided by the grand
solar rooftop sector in their states. The inputs collated sum to arrive at its relative importance.
for this question were used for analysis to arrive at the
weightages for the drivers/parameters. • The process was repeated for all the five parameters.
• The relative importance was calculated to act as the

weightages for the drivers in the index model.
Illustration: For simplification purposes, assume the stakeholders under consideration are only 20.
Below is the frequency matrix of the responses:
No. of response
Robustness of Effectiveness Investment Consumer Business
Ranking Points
policy framework of policy support climate experience ecosystem
1 0 0 0 1 3 1
2 1 1 2 1 0 2
3 3 2 5 6 14 3
4 5 7 5 3 2 4
5 11 10 8 9 1 5
Total 86 86 79 78 58 387
As seen from the table, the parameter - robustness of policy framework received 86 points out of the grand sum of 387
points. This translates into a weightage of 22% for this parameter. The weightages for the other parameters are arrived
at in a similar fashion. This process was iterated for all the three groups and later simple average of the weightages, so
arrived, was calculated. This became the final weightages of the five parameters.

2.4.4. Scaling and normalization process
A s part of the questionnaire, each stakeholder

answered the following question:
Distance to the frontier
Distance to the frontier measures the relative position
Out of the five drivers, please rank (in a scale of 1 to 5)
of a given indicator viz.-a-viz. a reference point. The
according to the importance of each of them in assessing
score illustrates the distance of a state to the “frontier,”
state attractiveness for rooftop solar.
which represents the best performance observed on each
scoring indicator. A state’s distance to frontier is indicated
Scale transformation prior to on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the lowest
normalization performance and 100 the frontier. Another reason to
choose this methodology was that not only does it allow
To have an objective comparison across small and
the benchmarking of states but also can be used to
large states, scaling of variables by an appropriate size
compare the improvement across the years. It can show
measure, for e.g., population, income, trade volume
how much the state has changed over time in absolute
and populated land area, etc. is required. This ensures
terms with respect to the scoring indicators. Calculating
non-penalization of the smaller states and providing a
the distance to frontier score for each economy involves
level playing field for all the states. One of the scoring
normalization of individual component (y) using the linear
indicators pertain to the installed rooftop solar capacity.
transformation (worst – y)/(worst – frontier).
Taking the absolute number would have been unfair to the
smaller states like Goa and north-eastern states. Instead,
the installed capacity as a fraction of the rooftop solar (Worst – y)
targets, expressed in percentages, was taken as the input Distance to the frontier score = * 100
(Worst – frontier)
for this scoring indicator.
The frontier and worst value depends on the scoring

Normalization of data: avoid adding up criteria of the scoring indicator such as:
apples and oranges
• Higher is better - where higher the value, better the
Normalization of data is required prior to any data performance (say share of C&I consumers in total
aggregation as the indicators in a data set often have GRPV installation)
different measurement units. The normalization phase
• Lower is better - where lower the value, better the
is crucial both for the accuracy and the coherence of
performance (say O&M cost)
results. An inappropriate normalization procedure can
give rise to unreliable or biased results. On the other Illustration: The values for share of C&I consumers
hand, the interpretability of the index relies heavily on the in total GRPV installation range from the 93.68% (for
correctness of the approach followed in the normalization Maharashtra) to 35.71% (for Himachal Pradesh). The
phase. Thus, the normalization method should consider higher the value on this scoring indicator, more is
the data properties, as well as the objectives of the index. the attractiveness of a state. As per this calculation,
The SARAL is envisioned to be normative with actionable Maharashtra will get a score of 100 while it will be 0 for
key points for the various stakeholders of the rooftop the state of Himachal Pradesh. The other states will lie
solar segment. This warrants the use of distance to the in between which will represent the distance to the best
frontier methodology for normalization of the data set. value. For Delhi, with 44.44% of C&I consumers share, the
3
9 distance to frontier will come out to be 15.06 ((0.3571-
0.4444) / (0.3571-0.9368) *100).
Thus, this method of transformation warrants that each

data point has a unique score thus effectively capturing
the difference among the states against the scoring
indicators.

2.4.5. Computation of the overall score
T he scores are calculated at every level, i.e., scoring

indicator, sub-parameters and parameters. The
states’ ranking is also done at all the levels. This allows
Illustration: to continue with the above example on the
share of commercial and industrial (C&I) consumers in
total GRPV installation, each dataset adds up to reach an
comprehensive comparison of the states’ performance. overall scoring in the following way:
Maharashtra Delhi
Normalized distance to frontier score 100 15.06
Score adjusted for scoring indicator weight of 33% 100*100% 15.06*100%
Score adjusted for sub-parameter weight of 25% 100*100%*33.3% 15.06*100%*33.3%
Score adjusted for parameter weight of 16% 100*100%*33.3%*16.8% 15.06*100%*33.3%*16.8%
So out of the 5.60 marks attributed to share of C&I consumers in total GRPV installation, Maharashtra scores 5.60, Delhi
gets 0.84 and Himachal Pradesh.The same process is reiterated for all the 34 scoring indicators and sum of all these
gives the overall SARAL score. The states have been ranked based on their SARAL scores.

03
States
Final results and key takeaways for
4
1

3.1. Key learnings
There are several success stories across states in India which provide enormous learning to remove the existing barriers.
Some of the successful initiatives and critical challenges that are need to be overcome are discussed below.
The following fact have helped assign scores for the defined parameters, sub-parameters and indicators.
1. Robustness of policy framework capacity as high as 20 MW, . However, but the

government policies only allow only 1 MW-2 MW
It measures how clear, detailed and supportive is the
of maximum installed capacity for grid-connected
existing policy and regulatory framework.
rooftop plants.
Successful initiatives:
• There is a lack of single window facility for project
• Bihar’s new policy aims for energy sufficiency by clearances in several states.
adding 3,433 MW of power from renewable energy
sources into its generation capacity by 2022 with
a dedicated rooftop solar target of 1,000 MW 2. Effectiveness of policy support/implementation
with having both net metering and gross metering
It measures how effectively and efficiently the laid down
mechanisms. Notable provisions in the policy are
policies and regulations have been adopted in practice.
include the conversion of roof spaces of all the state
government buildings in the state as “roof bank” Successful initiatives:
for solar rooftop projects that highlights focus on • Telangana New and Renewable Energy Development
creating strong policies that will channelize rooftop Corporation Limited (TSREDCO) has signed an MoU
solar deployment. with Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
• In January 2018, the Joint Electricity Regulatory (TSRTC) for establishing 5 MW of solar PV energy
Commission (JERC) introduced the state sSolar capacity. Several urban local bodies are in the
pPolicy for Goa that has set a clear framework for process of applying to set up roof-top solar energy
ground mounted solar as well as solar rooftop. It has systems in the on-grid method.
introduced both the capital expenditure (CAPEX) • Maharashtra has put aside I₹ NR2,682 crore for
model and the renewable energy supply company installing rooftop solar systems on government
(RESCO) model CAPEX and RESCO model for buildings (with 100% subsidy). The state also offers
ownership and is encouraging encourages the 15% subsidy to people below the poverty line for
consumers to opt for solar rooftop by installing a installing rooftop solar systems (15% subsidy).
solar rooftop over all government buildings. Applicants can apply for the net metering program in
• In January 2018, the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Maharashtra by filling a simple online form.
Commission (OERC) passed an amended to its 2016 • The Haryana Government plans to make it
regulations on net metering and their connectivity mandatory for all public buildings, like schools, health
with respect to solar PV projects. The OERC has centers, and offices to have rooftop solar panels as
raised the cumulative solar energy capacity at part of their state-wide initiative.
distribution transformer level to 75% of from the
transformer capacity from of 30%. There is no cap What is holding the sector back?:
on the capacity of solar installation at the consumer • In many states, projects face delay in approvals and
level if it is within the limit of the connected load. other regulatory processes.
4
3
What is holding the sector back?: • In many states, there is slow progress in deployment
• Many state-level policies and regulations have gaps of solar panels due to inadequate policy frameworks,
such as lack of guidelines for interconnection with passive opposition from DISCOMs and insufficient
the grid, guidelines for meter technology to be used, capacity at the local utility level.
and set timelines for benefits or subsidies, etc. • Many state regulations impose a cap on size of
• In a few states, there are several sites that are rooftop solar PV due to limitations transformers’
spaceous and can enough forinstall a plant with capacity anctioned load, and consumer inertia.

3. Investment climate for rooftop solar sector 4. Consumer experience
This measures how well a state is positioned to attract It measures the perception, acceptance and experience of
investments in this sector. the consumers of this sector.
Successful initiatives: Successful initiatives:
• Punjab exhibits a positive investment climate towards • A

 ndhra Pradesh’s dedicated rooftop solar portal,
rooftop solar. In May 2018, the state opened the Unified Solar Rooftop Transaction Portal (USRTP)
world’s largest single rooftop facility with the capacity serves as an integrated platform for multiple solar
to produce 11.5 MW electricity. A power purchase rooftop stakeholders in the state. The USRTP displays
agreement (PPA) was signed between the Beas and comprehensive information pertaining to installation
the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) of solar rooftop PV system in the state and enables
for 25 years. The project is expected to generate 27 interactions between multiple stakeholders.
million units of electricity per annum which may be Through this platform, it is possible for consumers
enough to cater to the electricity needs of about to submit interconnection applications and also
8,000 households in Punjab. apply for subsidies to appropriate DISCOM and
New&Renewable Energy Development Corporation
• The Uttarakhand Government is promoting the
of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (NREDCAP ) , respectively.
use of small-scale rooftop under grid Interacted
USRTP enables tracking the progress of both the
rooftop scheme in Uttarakhand where applicants are
submitted applications.
provided with a 30% subsidy under National Solar
Mission of MNRE. • T
 he Government of Goa has installed a solar rooftop
plant over Raj Bhavan and have identified 13 offices
• In 2018, on behalf of the Energy Department of
of Goa Power Department that will host solar rooftop
the Government of Bihar,Bihar Renewable energy
in a bid to increase awareness among people.
Development Agency (BREDA) invited bids for 40
MW worth of grid-connected solar rooftop for various • In July 2018, Directorate of New and Renewable
locations across Bihar. Energy (DNRE) invited bids for empanelment of
firms for supply, erection, testing and commissioning
What is holding the sector back:?
including warranty, operation and maintenance for
• Funding of initiatives like National Solar Mission five years of grid interactive rooftop solar power
is a constraint given India’s inadequate financing plants having capacities up to 1000 kWp in Nagaland.
capabilities. The finance ministry has explicitly raised
What is holding the sector back?:
concerns about funding an ambitious scheme like
National Solar Mission (NSM). • A major challenge being faced by almost all states
is the ownership structure of residential complexes.
• Since rooftop solar market has not picked up and
Large cities with high income households have
there is only a meagre 10%-12% share of the overall
limited rooftop solar space for installation and
solar capacity, banks/financiers perceptions of high
with multi-family apartment complexes and rented
risks and suspicion about their future performances
houses, the ownership rights become a major
which makes them unwilling to lend money for solar
hindrance of rooftop solar.
rooftop projects.
• The lack of a common e-platform to keep customers
• Financial institutions lack technical expertise to carry
updated about the information on the incentives,
out due diligence for solar roof top.
documentation and process of implementation of
solar rooftop projects impacts customer awareness,
especially in residential areas.
• Volatilities in solar equipment’s prices (especially

modules) and ambiguities related to policy measures
result in fluctuations in systems’ costs, which inturn
compel customers to wait and watch for further
reduction in prices.

5. Business ecosystem
It measures how supportive is the law and order, market What is holding the sector back?
demand institutions , and infrastructure for any business
• Complexity of institutional framework due to
in the state.
involvement of too many agencies like MNRE, IREDA,
Successful initiatives: SNA, electricity board and electricity regulatory
commission makes the development of solar PV
• In 2018, a two-day workshop on “‘’Outreach of solar
projects difficult.
rooftop was conducted in Assam in order to create a
positive business ecosystem in the state. • Difficult environment for businesses due to lack of
The workshop was organized on how to run an close industry-government cooperation in several
integrated campaign to drive demand for solar states hinder the rooftop solar market to
rooftop at the state level. achieve success.
• T
 he Ministry of Power in Kerala directed Kerala State
Electricity Board (KSEBL) to provide rooftop solar
training to its field-level employees.
4
5

3.2. SARAL state scores in five broad drivers
Table 3: SARAL state scores in five broad drivers
Robustness of Effectiveness of policy Investment Consumer Business

Ranking States Saral score
policy framework work/ implementation climate Experience ecosystem
1 Karnataka 78.76 99.54 76.77 80.79 67.02 70.50
2 Telangana 72.21 61.48 68.08 81.79 80.59 66.63
3 Gujarat 67.87 31.25 81.11 83.28 75.25 61.06
Andhra
4 66.10 79.17 66.84 72.08 54.50 58.95
Pradesh
5 Rajasthan 62.25 66.67 64.29 80.76 51.53 46.03
Madhya
6 58.27 12.50 63.10 77.98 78.00 52.10
Pradesh
7 Delhi 54.61 31.25 68.61 60.52 56.86 48.76
8 Punjab 53.42 45.83 48.08 78.51 55.75 35.25
9 Maharashtra 52.01 31.25 50.57 74.93 52.07 58.09
10 Tamil Nadu 50.87 40.97 46.82 65.98 51.72 53.43
11 Chandigarh 48.33 4.17 53.40 56.37 71.68 48.09
12 Haryana 43.35 14.58 50.55 72.28 30.34 66.01
13 Kerala 42.92 27.08 46.81 42.87 50.49 44.35
14 Odisha 39.44 25.00 46.23 40.99 45.94 31.15
15 Jharkhand 37.68 40.28 38.72 38.24 27.26 55.27
16 Chhattisgarh 36.52 10.42 39.35 44.24 43.07 50.17
17 Goa 31.83 45.83 31.22 20.18 23.85 45.38
18 Uttarakhand 31.58 30.56 33.50 52.92 14.00 38.54
19 Assam 29.00 62.50 13.04 11.80 25.90 40.61
20 Uttar Pradesh 26.54 40.28 26.83 23.18 12.79 39.51
21 Sikkim 22.80 25.00 13.75 11.80 34.04 30.72
Arunachal
22 21.58 33.33 11.15 11.80 24.82 32.94
Pradesh
Himachal
23 20.75 29.17 15.60 0.00 25.60 38.69
Pradesh
24 Nagaland 20.46 25.00 13.73 11.80 27.75 24.29
25 Bihar 20.32 34.72 11.24 31.19 5.10 36.41
26 Mizoram 20.28 20.83 16.24 11.80 31.99 13.64
27 West Bengal 19.39 20.83 13.10 14.72 17.35 44.88
28 Manipur 19.31 25.00 6.16 11.80 33.39 18.23
29 Tripura 17.66 27.08 3.64 11.80 24.33 27.52
30 Meghalaya 17.59 25.00 3.75 11.80 28.21 20.93
Jammu &
31 14.38 20.83 13.73 4.10 10.82 29.07
Kashmir

04
Annexure 1
4
7

4.1. Scoring
indicators

Robustness
01
of policy
framework
How clear, detailed and supportive
is the existing policy and regulatory
framework?
4
9

Clarity and detailing in metering regulations
Robustness of Level Clarity and detailing

policy framework of policy support in metering regulations
The clarity, depth and exhaustiveness of the state’s metering policy as measured by
What it measures:
assessing various provisions, technical standards and incentives provided.
The policies and regulations have a direct impact on the growth of any technology.
Therefore, we have included this parameter to measure quality and extent of policy
support in different states. Most states have come up with a net/gross metering
policy of their own, adapted from Central Electricity Regulatory Commission model
regulations of 2013. However, there are subtle variations in each state’s policy and
regulations that this parameter attempts to capture. The comprehensiveness of
Rationale for inclusion:
regulations addresses the questions that may arise in minds of the prosumer or any
other interested party. It gives a clear directive to the DISCOMs and other agencies
involved in this sector. The expectations and responsibilities are spelled out to boost
confidence among the applicants of a rooftop solar system. The clarity with which the
regulations have been laid down too have been taken into consideration for grading
the states.
An exhaustive checklist was prepared including scope of regulations, extent of
application, detailing in procedure of application and detailing in interconnection
with distribution system. A number of data points were collected from below
mentioned sources and were mapped against each state to arrive at a score. The
qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 5.
Mode of measurement: Score 5: Very clear and detailed policy that contains more than three items from
checklist (listed above)
Score 4: Policy that contains two from checklist
Score 3: Policy contains less than two items from checklist
Score 2: Policy has no items as per checklist
Score 1: No clear policy document available in public domain
Unit of Lowest: 3
Scoring criteria: Higher is better; Scale of 5 Range:
measurement: Highest: 5
• R
■■ espective state’s net/gross metering
policy/ regulations
Data source: S
■ tate’s solar policy documents
• Time period: FY19
(Secondary)
• S
■ ubsequent amendments and other announcements
• G
■ overnment/SNA’s websites

Availability of other state schemes to promote solar rooftop
Robustness of Level Availability of other state schemes

policy framework of policy support to promote solar rooftop
The various exemptions, subsidies and other schemes provided by the state
What it measures: governments are documented by a policy framework checklist to capture both the
exhaustiveness and the comprehensiveness of the exemptions.
To achieve the renewable energy targets set by the government, the central as well
as the state governments have incorporated various exemptions, subsidies and other
facilities. These effectively bring down the costs and risks associated with a rooftop
solar system. The exemptions, subsidies and other such schemes vary from one state
to another. The extent of these support schemes and incentives also varies. Thus,
these play a key role in determining the attractiveness of a state towards solar rooftops
because most of them directly benefit the prosumers by creating an environment most
propitious for the success of rooftop solar.
An exhaustive checklist (as stated in Clarity and detailing in metering regulations

parameters) was prepared to enumerate number of incentives and the value of
incentives. The data points collected from below mentioned sources was mapped
against each state to arrive at a score. The qualitative data has been quantified on a
Mode of measurement: scale of 1 to 3.
Score 3: Score given to states that had maximum value and number of incentives
Score 2: Score given to states that had maximum value of incentive but lesser
number of incentives compared to score 3 states
Score 1: Given to states with no announced incentives
Unit of Lowest: 1
Scoring criteria: Higher is better Scale of 5 Range:
• Respective state’s net metering policy/ regulations
• State’s solar policy documents
Data source: • Subsequent amendments and other announcements

Time period: FY19
(Secondary) • Government/SNA’s websites
• N
■ ews articles
• Research articles
5
1

Provision of single window mechanism
Robustness of Level Provision of single

policy framework of policy support window mechanism
Single window mechanism captures the provisions for a single location and/or single
What it measures: entity for the consumer to submit the application and other regulatory documents
required for installing a rooftop solar system.
The single window mechanism facilitates in clearances of all the requisite approvals,
permissions and consents required at a single point of contact. The provisions for such
a system streamlines the tedious and time consuming process for installing a rooftop
Rationale for inclusion: solar system, making it more accessible and convenient for an interested party. The
perceived challenges and cost associated with installing a rooftop solar system reduces
its attractiveness driving away the interested party. But a single window mechanism
can overcome this perception.
Checked presence of single window mechanism in regulation or its subsequent

revisions. The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3.
Score 1: Presence of single window mechanism and evidence of its implementation
Mode of measurement: Score 2: Presence of single window mechanism but no evidence of its
implementation status
Score 3: Absence of single window mechanism
Unit of Lowest: 3
Scoring criteria: Lower is better Scale of 3 Range:
Data source: • S
■ ubsequent amendments and other announcements
Time period: FY19
• News articles
• R
■ esearch articles

Provision of deemed approval process
Robustness of Level Provision of deemed

policy framework of policy support approval process
Provision of deemed approval process captures if such a provision is in place or not,

What it measures:
and if yes then the number of days specified is taken into consideration.
If a deemed approval process is in place, it ensures the responsiveness of the DISCOMS

to applications for setting up rooftop solar systems by prosumers. With this system,
DISCOMs cannot claim delays in the approval process without proper justification or
without intimating the applicant of the shortcomings in the application and of the
corrective measures to be adopted. This boosts the applicants’ confidence resulting in
a more mature market.
Enumeration of presence or absence or proposal for provision of deemed approval

process. In case the process is in place then relative comparison was made based
on the number of days lag before deemed approval is given. In absence of such a
Mode of measurement: provision, the default value of 100 days was given.
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a
scale of 0 to 100.
Unit of Number Lowest – 100

Scoring criteria: Lower is better Range:
measurement: of days Highest – 10
• R
■ espective state’s net metering policy/ regulations

Time period: FY19
(Secondary) • G
■ overnment/SNA’s websites
• N
■ ews articles
• R
■ esearch articles
5
3

Maximum GRPV system size allowed in the state
Robustness of Covenants Maximum GRPV system size

policy framework allowed in the state
This scoring indicator compares the maximum size of a rooftop solar system that is
What it measures:
allowed in different states.
The state policy makers impose covenants on the interest party with respect to the
maximum size of a rooftop solar system that can be installed in that state. The larger
projects benefits from scale of economies and increases the return on the investment.
This is most relevant to the C&I sector since they often have huge energy requirements
and have the means of going for a bigger rooftop solar plant. The maximum size
allowed and its related provisions are taken into consideration to apprise the states.
Enumeration of maximum project size allowed as per policy. The data points collected
from below mentioned sources were mapped against each state to arrive at a score.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3.
Mode of measurement: Score 3: More than 1 MWp
Score 2: 1 MWp
Score 1: Less than 1 MWp
Unit of Lowest: 1
• Respective state’s metering policy/ regulations

Time period: FY19
• News articles

Minimum system size allowed
Robustness of Covenants Minimum system

policy framework size allowed
This scoring indicator compares the minimum size of a rooftop solar system that is
What it measures:
allowed in different states.
The state policy makers impose covenants on the interest party with respect to
the minimum size of a rooftop solar system that can be installed in that state. The
bigger the size, more is the capital requirement which essentially drives away the
prosumers which are interested in installing small plants. This is most relevant to the
residential sector. The minimum size allowed and its related provisions are taken into
consideration to apprise the states.
Enumeration of minimum project size allowed as per policy. The data points collected
from below mentioned sources were mapped against each state to arrive at a score.
Mode of measurement: Score 3: Less than 1 KWp
Score 2: 1 KWp
Score 1: More than 1 KWp
Unit of Lowest – 3
measurement: Highest – 1

Time period: FY19
• News articles

Cumulative capacity of solar vis-à-vis regional DT capacity
Robustness of Covenants Permissible cumulative capacity of

policy framework solar vis-à-vis regional DT capacity
The indicator denotes the total cumulative capacity of rooftop solar plants that can be
What it measures:
installed in an area covered by a single distribution transformer.
All state regulations place a restriction on the total capacity of rooftop solar plants
connected to one distribution transformer in an area. It is usually a fraction (that varies
from state to state) of the capacity of the distribution transformer itself. This restriction
Rationale for inclusion: limits the extent of proliferation of rooftop solar in a state. If the cumulative capacity is
low, it directly affects the prosumers’ capacity to install rooftop solar and thus greatly
affects a state’s attractiveness. It is also indicative of the quality of infrastructure in
place as better the infrastructure higher would be the limit.
Enumerated the given permissible cumulative capacity of solar vis-à-vis distribution
transformer and then gave scores according to maximum allowed to minimum allowed
capacity. The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3.
Mode of measurement: Score 3: Maximum allowed capacity more than 60% of transformer capacity
Score 2: Allowed capacity between 30% to 60% of transformer capacity
Score 1: Allowed capacity less than 30% of transformer capacity
Unit of Lowest: 1

Time period: FY19
• News articles

Settlement time
Robustness of Billing Settlement

policy framework mechanism time
The payment settlement time denotes the payback time taken by the DISCOMs for the
What it measures:
surplus power received by them from the prosumer.
The settlement time will be a critical factor in determining the overall pecuniary benefit
of rooftop solar system for a rational prosumer. Shorter the settlement time shorter
would be the payback period resulting in a stronger business case for any rational
Rationale for inclusion: party. It is hoped that this parameter creates a competitiveness among states to
improve their billing time frame, thereby winning stakeholder’s confidence. The related
provisions such as mode of payment, the minimum electricity bill to be borne and such
other provisions too have been factored in.
Enumerated settlement time mentioned in the policy and gave scores accordingly.
Minimum score was given to states with no mention of settlement time. The qualitative
data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3.
Mode of measurement: Score 3: Annually or not defined
Score 2: Biannually
Score 1: Monthly
• S
■ tate’s solar policy documents
Data source:
• G
■ overnment/SNA’s websites Time period: FY19
(Secondary)
• News articles
5
7

02
Effectiveness of
policy support/
implementation
How clear, detailed and supportive
is the existing policy and regulatory
framework?
5
9

Presence of interactive consumer interfaces
Effectiveness of Presence of interactive

Ease of application
policy support consumer interfaces
Whether or not an interactive consumer interface is available that might provide

What it measures: consumers with information regarding the policies, incentives, exemptions etc. along
with case by case profitability analysis.
The uptake of rooftop solar is greatly dependent on its profitability as perceived by the
potential consumers and investors. An interactive and user friendly interface helps in
spreading awareness and helps these stakeholders in profitability analysis greatly helps
Rationale for inclusion: to increase the number of willing consumers. The availability of such a system in a state
promotes rooftop solar uptake and makes the state more attractive. In addition to these,
presence of a grievance redressal portal simplifies the process and wins the confidence of
the interested parties.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to3.
Score 3: Presence of user-friendly interactive platforms for consumers
Mode of measurement Score 2: Presence of online tools but there are evidences that the tools are not
consumer friendly
Score 1: No online tools available for interaction with consumer
Unit of Lowest: 1
• SNA website
• The online portal itself
Data source: • Survey responses from questionnaires developed by

Time period: N/A
(Secondary) SARAL team for state consultations
• Answered by: DISCOMs, SNA and developers

Average time taken from date of application to system installation
Effectiveness of Average time taken from date

Ease of application
policy support of application to system installation
The time required in the entire process from application for rooftop solar plant to the
What it measures:
final installation of the same.
Most states do not possess a single window mechanism. In addition, rooftop solar
commissioning process is not given a deemed approval status in most states. This make
the process cumbersome and time consuming, greatly reducing its attractiveness to
potential consumers. It is one of the ground-level challenges that plague the rooftop
solar space. Since it has a direct bearing on consumers, it greatly affects the state’s
attractiveness as a whole.
Score 5: States that take the most time to process application to installation (more
than a month)
Mode of measurement Score 4: Time taken is 4 weeks
Score 3: Time taken is less than 4 weeks
Score 2: Time taken is between 3-4 weeks
Score 1: Minimum time taken to process and install rooftop solar
Unit of Lowest: 5
• Survey responses from questionnaires developed by
Data source: SARAL team for state consultations Time period: N/A
(Secondary)
• Answered by: DISCOMs; SNA; Developers
6
1

Ease of availing state subsidies
Effectiveness of Average time taken from date

Ease of application
policy support of application to system installation
It measures the ease with which subsidy provided by the state governments can be
What it measures:
availed by a user of the rooftop solar system.
Every state comes out with solar/renewable energy polices from time to time. These
policies differ from each other in a way that some of them can prove to be more efficient
and effective creating an environment more supportive or lucrative for solar rooftops.
Rationale for inclusion: This parameter documents such aspects of these policies. The existence of subsidies
being offered in the state enhances the profitability and speeds up the process of
reaching grid parity for the prosumer. It encourages people from all economic classes to
set up the solar system, thereby maximising the penetration of the technology.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 5 based on responses of the
following question:
What is the normal procedure to avail Central Financial Assistance (CFA) scheme
subsidy? How long normally does it take to avail the subsidy by developers/end users?
How easy/difficult to avail the subsidy? Please rate in a scale of 1 -5 where
Mode of measurement 1- Very difficult
2- Difficult
3- Neutral
4- Easy
5- Very Easy
(Secondary)
• Answered by: SNA and developers

Deviation from the stipulated settlement period
Effectiveness of Power offtake Deviation from the stipulated

policy support attractiveness settlement period
This captures the ground level reality of when the settlement payment actually happens
What it measures:
for a prosumer as against what is written in the policy document.
The deviation from the stipulated settlement period will be a critical factor in determining
the overall pecuniary benefit of rooftop solar system for a rational prosumer. Greater the
Rationale for inclusion: deviation, lesser is the faith of the prosumers in the economic advantage of the rooftop
solar. The deviation from what is specific in the regulations represents a loss to the
prosumer and thereby reduce the attractiveness of the state.
Score 1: No deviation
Mode of measurement
Score 2: Observable deviation
Score 3: No information available on deviation
• Survey responses from questionnaires developed
by SARAL team for state consultations
Data source:
Time period: N/A
(Secondary) • N
■ ews articles
• A
■ nswered by: DISCOMs; SNA; Developers
Credit rating of DISCOMs
Effectiveness of State of affairs Credit rating

policy support of DISCOMs of DISCOMs
This indicator evaluates the DISCOMs on three broad categories – operational and reform
What it measures: parameters, external parameters, and financial parameters which culminates in a single
ranking for the DISCOM.
MNRE has been making continuous efforts to bring DISCOMs to the forefront in
accomplishing the ambitious target of installing 40 GW from solar rooftop. However,
DISCOMs may prove to be the principal stumbling block in India realising its rooftop solar
power goals. As more C&I users, who bring the maximum revenues to state DISCOMS,
take to solar power, the revenues of electricity generators and distributors would fall.
The DISCOMs are already in the bad financial position and solar rooftop may further hurt
their revenue. The credit rating thus play an important role in capturing the ability and
willingness of the DISCOMs to support this budding sector.
6
3 For the states with multiple DISCOMs, the highest of the individual scores was taken to
represent the state’s score.
Mode of measurement
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a
scale of 0 to 100.
Unit of Scores out Lowest – 10

Scoring criteria: Higher is better Range:
measurement: of 100 Highest – 90
• Ministry of Power’s State Distribution
Data source:
• Utilities Sixth Annual Integrated Rating report Time period: N/A
(Secondary)

Instances of retrospective changes to the policy
Effectiveness of Impact Instances of retrospective

policy support of policy changes to the policy
This attempts to capture the frequency of changes in the policy and the evidence of
What it measures:
policy confusion among investors through media reports.
The rooftop solar sector is in its nascent stage and needs support of regulatory
authorities, DISCOMs and other stakeholders to grow. A supportive policy framework
Rationale for inclusion: becomes necessary for proliferation of rooftop solar. The frequent changes in policies,
misleading statements in the media reports and ambiguity in the regulation itself can
confuse the interested parties and drive away the demand.
Maximum score was given to those states that have clarified their policies or has
reinforced the existing policies. Minimum score was given to states with has made
misleading comments or has turned their back on their initial schemes. The qualitative
Mode of measurement data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3.
Score 3: Evidence of favourable changes in policy
Score 2: No evidence of favourable changes in policy
Score 1: No information available
Data source:
• News articles Time period: N/A
(Secondary)
The rooftop target achieved so far (in %)
Effectiveness of Impact The rooftop target

policy support of policy achieved so far (in %)
Rooftop target achieved so far denotes the existing installed capacity of the
What it measures:
solar rooftop in a state.
The rooftop target achieved so far explains the current status of the state in terms of the
installation of rooftop solar panel system. A high target achieved implies technology that
has been long enough present in the state and that most of the hurdles, which crops up
in the initial stage, has been sorted out. A state having a high ranking based on rooftop
target achieved so far shall have an edge in terms of attractiveness, technology setup,
supply and demand side market, favourable policies for interested stakeholders. This
could also serve as a source of information/indication for the stakeholders for untapped
areas having high potential.
The installed capacity as a fraction of the rooftop solar targets, expressed in percentages,
have been taken for analysis.
Mode of measurement
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a scale
of 0 to 100.
Unit of Lowest – 0.02%

Scoring criteria: Higher is better % Range:
measurement: Highest–28.37%
• Bridge to India’s India solar rooftop map
Data source: • Grid connected Solar Rooftop and Small Solar Power Time period: FY19
(Secondary) Plants Programme documents as published by
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy

Investment
03
climate for
rooftop solar
sector
How well a state is positioned for
investment opportunities in
this sector?
6
5

Share of C&I consumers in total GRPV installation
Investment climate Driver for rooftop Share of C&I consumers in

for rooftop solar solar uptake total GRPV installation
The share of C&I consumers denotes the fraction of the total consumer base that is
What it measures:
comprised of C&I consumers in the total GRPV installation in the state.
The electricity bill comprises of the majority of the operational costs for any commercial
and institutional (C&I) player. The unreliable supply of electricity and the high electricity
tariffs are the major reasons for this high cost. The tariffs are on a higher side for C&I
Rationale for inclusion: consumers as compared to residential consumers. Thus, installing a rooftop solar system
makes more economical sense for C&I consumers to not just cut cost but to also explore
solar energy as another revenue stream. The more the proportion of C&I consumers of
the total consumers more is the scope for installing the rooftop solar systems.
The rooftop solar capacity installed by C&I consumer divided by overall rooftop solar
installed capacity and expressed as a %.
Mode of measurement
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on
a scale of 0 to 100.
Unit of Lowest– 42.86%

measurement: Highest–93.68%
Data source:
• Bridge to India’s India solar rooftop map Time period: FY19
(Secondary)
Ease of securing loans
Investment climate Ease of Ease of

for rooftop solar financing securing loans
Ease of securing loans gauges the availability and accessibility of obtaining financial
What it measures:
assistance by an average investor.
Ease of securing loans is indicative of the availability of loans in the market for switching
to the solar rooftop system to source one’s power directly. Since the initial investment
Rationale for inclusion: required for the setting up of this system is high, this emerges as an important parameter
in gauging how the existing infrastructure is placed to support anyone planning on
moving to solar rooftop systems.
following questions:
Do you know which are the banks giving loans for rooftop solar installations in your
Mode of measurement state? How is their presence? Is it tagged to home loan? What is the interest rate %?
How easily loans can be availed for rooftop solar installations compared to other loans
such as home/car/education?
1-Very Low | 2-Low | 3-Medium | 4-High | 5-Very High
• S
■ urvey responses from questionnaires developed by
(Secondary)
• Answered by: Developers and lenders

Availability of insurance providers for GRPV projects
Investment climate Ease of Availability of insurance

for rooftop solar financing providers for GRPV projects
Insurance providers attempt to portray the scenario for getting insurance for
What it measures:
RTS by an interested party.
For most of the MSMEs the energy costs comprise of the majority of the operational
costs. The unreliable supply of electricity and the high electricity tariffs are the major
reasons for this high cost. The scoring indicators such as insurance providers gives an
insight into the risk appetite for debt financing and availability of insurance policies for
rooftop solar investments. The indicators shall also take into consideration schemes
provided by the Govt. in each state, SIDBI and NBFC’s involvement, loan disbursement
time etc. Each state shall then be ranked based on all these variables favouring
investments in rooftop solar.
Mode of measurement Are there any specialised insurance companies providing insurance services especially
in rooftop segment in your state? How is their presence?
1. Very Low | 2. Low | 3. Medium | 4. High | 5. Very High
(Secondary)
• Answered by: Developers
Availability of project developers/ installers/ material suppliers
Investment climate Maturity Availability of project developers/

for rooftop solar of market installers/ material suppliers
Availability of project developers/ installers/ material suppliers is indicative of the ease of

What it measures:
installing a rooftop solar system by an interested party.
MNRE had initially handed out licenses to some of the solar rooftop panel developers to
execute such projects. Since the scrapping of empanelled developers list and simplification of
the process, many players have started to come into the system for implementation services.
States that already had players from the beginning shall have a more mature market and
Rationale for inclusion: by new players coming in prices are expected to get competitive. A state with many players
also indicate the potential for rooftop solar there in terms of ease of doing business, cost
of implementation, policies and most importantly demand. The same rationale goes for
contractors and other material. The higher number of developers and contractors or the
abundance of material would reduce the search costs and contract costs for an average party.
6
7 The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3 based on responses of the
Mode of measurement Are there any specialised insurance companies providing insurance services especially in
rooftop segment in your state? How is their presence?
1. Low | 2. Medium | 3. High
Data source: (Secondary) SARAL team for state consultations Time period: N/A
• Answered by: SNA and developers

Consumer
04
behaviour
What is perception, acceptance and
experience of the consumers of
this sector?
6
9

Consumer awareness
Consumer Pre-installation Consumer

experience consideration awareness
Level of consumer awareness captures the acceptance and readiness of the consumer for
What it measures:
installing a rooftop solar system on their roofs.
A high level of consumer acceptance is pivotal for installation of solar rooftop to gain
momentum. The awareness of the benefits, procedure and approvals for rooftop solar
systems is a key determinant for the offtake of this alternative sources of energy. Hence
this is one of the key consideration for the index.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 5 based on responses to the
Are there any specialised insurance companies providing insurance services especially
in rooftop segment in your state? How is their presence?
How consumers are cognizant of rooftop solar technology?
If any consumer is interested in rooftop solar installations, what route normally he/she
does follow?
Mode of measurement Do consumers see rooftop solar a value proposition or they are not convinced still in
your state?
5. Very high level of consumer awareness
4. High level of consumer awareness
3. Medium level of consumer awareness
2. Low level of consumer awareness
1. Very Low level of consumer awareness
(Secondary)
• Answered by: DISCOMs; SNA; Developers

Tariff rise for end consumers
Consumer Pre-installation Tariff rise for end

experience consideration consumers
Tariff rise captures the increase in the price in last four years for a unit of electricity
What it measures:
for the end consumer.
With surge in tariffs, the attractiveness and affordability of grid electricity starts to
decrease for the end consumer. This is particularly true for C&I consumer where price
Rationale for inclusion: of electricity is a crucial component of their overall operational cost. This decreased
attractiveness of grid electricity could result in an opportunity for proliferation of rooftop
solar energy as a viable and price-competitive source of energy.
Tariff rise is tabulated as CAGR for past three years which is a better indicator of growth
over multiple time periods. To arrive at per unit price of electricity, simple average
of tariff for low tension and high tension industry is taken. For states with multiple
Mode of measurement DISCOMs, weighted average tariff is calculated with number of consumers served
as weights.
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a scale of
0 to 100.
Unit of Lowest – 9%
measurement: Highest – 53%
Data source:
• State’s tariff order for respective years Time period: FY15 - FY18
(Secondary)
System Average Interruption Duration Index
Consumer Pre-installation System Average Interruption

experience consideration Duration Index
System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) is measured as the average duration
What it measures:
in an interval of time for which a customer faces an outage of power.
SAIDI accounts for the unreliability of the grid to provide uninterrupted power to its
consumers. The more is this unreliability, the more will be the willingness of consumers to
go for decentralised source of power generation. The consumer can not only meet one’s
power requirement but also sell the extra units produced in the market. No longer has
the consumer had to be dependent on the inefficient and unreliable distribution network
and can enjoy power 24*7 by installing a rooftop solar system.
Tariff rise is tabulated as CAGR for past three years which is a better indicator of growth
over multiple time periods. To arrive at per unit price of electricity, simple average of
tariff for low tension and high tension industry is taken. For states with multiple The data
Mode of measurement here is tabulated as the Lowest performance of a state in a year in terms of average
7
1 number of hours of power outage in a month.
0 to 100.
Unit of Lowest 1.35
Scoring criteria: Higher is better Hrs./month Range:
measurement: Highest– 95.21
Data source: • Ministry of Power’s Urban Jyoti Abhiyaan (URJA)
Time period: FY19
(Secondary) app under Integrated Power Development Scheme

System Average Interruption Frequency Index
Consumer Pre-installation Tariff rise for end

experience consideration consumers
System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) is the measure of the average
What it measures:
number of sustained interruptions per consumer during the year.
SAIFI too accounts for the unreliability of a state to provide uninterrupted power to its
consumers. The more is this unreliability, the more will be the willingness of consumers to
go for decentralised source of power generation. The consumer can not only meet one’s
power requirement but also sell the extra units produced in the market. No longer has
the consumer had to be dependent on the inefficient and unreliable distribution network
and can enjoy power 24*7 by installing a rooftop solar system.
The data here is tabulated as the worst performance of a state in a year in terms of
number of times of power outage in a month. as weights.
Mode of measurement
0 to 100.
Unit of Times/ Lowest – 3.5
measurement: month Highest – 64.8
Data source: • Ministry of Power’s URJA app under Integrated
Time period: FY19
(Secondary) Power Development Scheme
Ease of execution - from application to installation
Consumer During Ease of execution - from

experience installation application to installation
The indicator captures the experience of a prosumer of installing a rooftop solar system
What it measures:
from the application stage till the system is up and running.
The perceived challenges and cost associated with installing a rooftop solar system is a
key determinant of the attractiveness of rooftop solar as an alternative source of energy.
If the costs, time and efforts outweigh the benefits, then few would be interested in
investing in a rooftop solar system. If that is the case, the large scale proliferation will
never take place. Thus, ease of execution becomes a key parameter in determining the
attractiveness of a state for its rooftop solar potential.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 5 based on response to
Consumers face a hassle free process from application to commissioning in your state:
Score 5: Strongly agree
Mode of measurement
Score 4: Agree
Score 3: Neutral
Score 2: Disagree
Score 1: Strongly disagree
Data source: • Survey responses from questionnaires developed by
Time period: FY19
(Secondary) SARAL team for state consultations

O&M cost
Consumer Post-installation O&M cost

experience experience/costs
The O&M cost refers to the perceived burden in terms of costs and time post installation
What it measures:
of a rooftop solar system.
The additional consumer responsibility of operations and maintenance (O&M) for the
rooftop solar system is a challenge to the widespread offtake of this sector. Many
Rationale for inclusion: consumers don’t want to take on the additional burden of O&M, as no such responsibility
exists for grid power. More is the perceived burden of O&M lesser attractiveness is the
state for installing the rooftop solar system.
How is the system O&M cost in your state? Do consumers find O&M responsibility
cumbersome? Rate your experience on a scale of 1-5
Mode of measurement Score 5: Strongly agree

Score 4: Agree
Score 3: Neutral
Score 2: Disagree
(Secondary)
• A
■ nswered by: SNA and developers
7
3

Warranty and aftersales experience
Consumer Post-installation Warranty and

experience experience/costs aftersales experience
The indicator captures the experience of a prosumer after installing a rooftop solar
What it measures:
system with respect to warranty and aftersales services.
The life of a rooftop solar system is expected to be around 20-25 years. The solar
panels may have a warranty clause and a long life expectancy means the warranty and
Rationale for inclusion: aftersales experience will have a great bearing on the offtake potential of rooftop solar. If
the experience of prosumers has been bad so far, the word of mouth will result in lesser
number of new prosumers going for it.
Are consumers happy with the aftersales services? If not, what kind of challenges are
faced by the consumers?
Is there a provision for warranty by the developers to the consumers? If yes, what kind
Mode of measurement of disputes does generally arise?
Score 5: Strongly agree
Score 4: Agree
Score 3: Neutral
Score 2: Disagree
(Secondary)
• A
■ nswered by: SNA and developers

State’s
05
business
ecosystem
How supportive is the law and order,
and infrastructure for any business in
the state?
7
5

Ease of doing business index
State’s Business Business Ease of doing

Ecosystem enablers business index
The Ease of doing business Index makes an assessment of state implementation of the
What it measures: 372 recommendations, part of Business Reform Action Plan, for reforms on regulatory
processes, policies, practices and procedures spread across 12 reform areas.
The Ease of Doing Business (EODB) index is indicative of how friendly the state is for
setting up of any business and not just rooftop solar sector. The EODB index takes into
account parameters like registering a company, getting clearances, electricity access,
getting credit and taxation, among others. It paints a real picture of the business
ecosystemand the progress made by the states in improving their investment climate. It
is particularly relevant for large scale rooftop solar projects.
Here, the EODB index is based on the assessment of state implementation of business
reforms as measured by the implementation percentage.
Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a scale
of 0 to 100.
Mode of measurement Score 5: Strongly agree

Score 4: Agree
Score 3: Neutral
Score 2: Disagree
Unit of Lowest – 0%
measurement: Highest – 98.3%
Data source: • Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion’s
Time period: FY18
(Secondary) EOBD portal

NCAER economy rating of the state
State’s Business Business NCAER economy

Ecosystem enablers rating of the state
The NCAER’s State Investment Potential Index 2018 is the second edition in the annual
What it measures: series of rankings of states on their growth and investment potential done by the
National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER).
The NCAER State Investment Potential Index 2018 is a systematic and evidence-based
index that assesses the competitiveness of states on 50 parameters grouped under six
broad pillars: land, labour, infrastructure, economic climate, governance and political
stability, and business perceptions. This index provides a single composite score
that gives a holistic view of how the states are positioned to encourage and attract
investment. It is valid to assume that the investments into rooftop sector too will flow in
those states which are attracting investors in other sectors as well. Hence this has been
included in the analysis.
The scores have been taken directly taken from the NCAER’s State Investment Potential
Index 2018. It covers only 20 states and one UT (Delhi). For others, the imputation of
Mode of measurement data was done.
0 to 100.
Unit of Index score Lowest – 33
measurement: out of 100 Highest – 56
Data source: • National Council of Applied Economic Research’s
Time period: FY18
(Secondary) State Investment Potential report
MSME 5 year growth rate
State’s Business Business MSME 5 year

Ecosystem enablers growth rate
The growth in the number of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in a state is
What it measures:
a measure of the rate at which business grows in that state.
It also sees how favourable the environment is for business and the kind of support is
extended by the government to help these grow. If the MSMEs growth rate in a state is
high, this means that the investment opportunities are more with better access to loans
and better regulations. As a result, the entrepreneurial spirit is high in the state.
Simple percentage change in the number of MSMEs is taken as a measure of the growth
rate. The nature of data did not allow calculation of CAGR.
Mode of measurement
0 to 100.
7 Unit of Lowest – 40%

measurement: Highest – 149%
• Ministry of Statistics and Programme
Implementation’s Operational Characteristics
Data source: of Unincorporated Non-Agricultural Enterprises
(Excluding Construction) in India report Time period: FY14 - FY16
(Secondary)
• Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises’ Sixth
Economic Census report

Credit rating of the state
State’s Business Business Credit rating

Ecosystem enablers of the state
A credit rating is an assessment of the creditworthiness of a borrower,

What it measures:
in this case a state.
Solar rooftop projects require funding and/or financial assistance from external agencies
such as banks, Non-Banking Financial Companies, insurers and others. Credit rating
Rationale for inclusion: is one of the criteria used by these agencies to judge the credibility of the state and
quantify the returns they will get on the investment. Hence this has been included in the
index to grade the states.
Public Affairs Centre publishes its annual Public Affairs Index (PAI) which ranks the states
based on a detailed examination of 10 broad themes of governance, fiscal management
being one of them. This index is used as a proxy for credit rating. The scores have been
Mode of measurement
directly taken from the PAI portal.
0 to 100.
Unit of Index score Lowest – 0.33
measurement: out of 1 Highest – 0.70
Data source:
• Public Affairs Centre’s PAI portal Time period: FY18
(Secondary)
Transparency of government policy making
State’s Business Business Transparency of government

Ecosystem enablers policy making
Transparency and accountability index, as a subsidiary index of Public Affairs Index (PAI),
What it measures: scores and ranks the states on basis of their openness and information dissemination of
the decision making by government and public offices.
Public Affairs Centre (PAC) publishes its annual PAI which ranks the states based on a
detailed examination of 10 broad themes of governance, transparency and accountability
being one of them. A transparent and accountable Government will not only help the
Rationale for inclusion: States to achieve growth, but also ensure development with the active participation of
the people. Openness within the institutions will allow the consumers/investors to be
aware of the functioning and the incentives related to installation of solar rooftop thus
driving a market for rooftop solar systems.
The scores have been directly taken from the PAI portal.
Mode of measurement Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a scale of
0 to 100.
Unit of Index score Lowest – 0.22

measurement: out of 1 Highest – 0.65
Data source:
• Public Affairs Centre’s PAI portal Time period: FY18
(Secondary)

Institutional architecture
State’s Business Business Institutional

Ecosystem enablers architecture
This indicator focuses on the existing institutional set up and how that acts as an enabler
What it measures:
in the uptake of rooftop solar.
Institutional architecture has been included as a parameter for rating a state because
it highlights the importance placed by the state on alternative sources of energy, solar
Rationale for inclusion: power in particular, through the establishment of special cells, dedicated teams in the
state utility, etc. to streamline all activities associated with the segment and to ensure
their smooth operation and future growth.
The qualitative data has been quantified on a scale of 1 to 3 based on responses to the
Is there any institutional structure exclusively for rooftop in state DISCOMs?
Mode of measurement
Score 3: Strongly agree, Structure in place with completely defined responsivity
Score 2: Agree, structure in place but overlap in roles and responsibilities
Score 1: Structure in place but roles and responsibilities not defined
• S
■ urvey responses from questionnaires developed by
(Secondary)
• A
■ nswered by: DISCOMs, SNA and developers
GSDP per capita
State’s Business Business GSDP

Ecosystem enablers per capita
GSDP per capita is a measure of an economy’s economic output that takes gross state
What it measures:
domestic product (GSDP) and divides it by the number of people.
GSDP per capita is reflective of the health of the economy and the living standards of its
people. It is used for comparing one state to another, because it shows the relative socio-
economic performance of the states. High GSDP per capita implies that the residents
have the means to switch to an alternative source of energy if they see long term gains
even if it means an initial investment on their part. Therefore, implying that the potential
for growth of the solar power sector in such areas should be high.
GSDP per capita for FY17 has been taken at current prices with FY12 as the base year.
Mode of measurement Score to the individual state was assigned by normalizing the data on a scale of
0 to 100.
7
9
Unit of Lowest – 40,819
Scoring criteria: Higher is better INR Range:
measurement: Highest - 4,43,694
Data source:
• Central Statistics Office publications Time period: FY18
(Secondary)

GSDP growth
State’s Business Business GSDP

Ecosystem enablers growth
The GSDP growth measures the increase in the GSDP of a state over the period of
What it measures:
last five years.
The GDP growth experienced by an economy has always been considered by government
and economic decision-makers for planning, policy formulation and investment decisions.
High GSDP growth indicates an increase in production, spending and general prosperity
of the state. Thus, a state, which is well-off, has more opportunities for all kinds of
investments projects. For rooftop solar projects too, states that has more financial
muscle will attract more investments.
GSDP growth is tabulated as CAGR for past three years which is a better indicator of
growth over multiple time periods.
Mode of measurement
0 to 100.
Unit of Lowest – 0.6%

measurement: Highest – 16.5%
Data source:
• Central Statistics Office publications Time period: FY18
(Secondary)

4.2. State consultation and regional
Workshop Reports
8
1

4.2.1. State consultation report
Introduction Stakeholders contacted
F or 40 GW solar energy to come from rooftop systems,

it is crucial to have an increased participation of states
and coordination among agencies. A self-sustainable
T he SARAL index is based on equity to bring in
objectivity and fairness to the model. With this aim
in mind, the EY team has reached out to the different
and private-sector driven rooftop solar sector holds the stakeholders in a state to capture the data holistically
key for renewable energy revolution in India. SARAL is a so that the real picture is portrayed. The following
stepping stone to this journey. stakeholders were consulted to solicit the responses:
In order to achieve its intended benefits, the visibility and • State electricity regulatory commission
acceptance of the SARAL index amongst various industry
• State Nodal Agencies
stakeholders is of utmost importance. The stakeholders
can provide invaluable insights for building the index and • Distributing companies (DISCOMs)
the EY team, in association with ASSOCHAM, has reached • Developers
out to the states to solicit their opinions and concerns
over the index. The inputs from the state consultations Both state and public DISCOMs were contacted to capture
are to be incorporated into the model, wherever feasible the inputs from all the relevant stakeholders.
and also to form the basis of assigning the weightages
to the five mains drivers/parameters on which the index
model is built.
Mode of interaction
States covered
T he state consultations were done either in person
and over the e-mail and/or telephones. For in-person
meetings, the EY team flew to the respectitive states to
T
meet the various stakeholders.
he SARAL team has set the target to appraise all the
29 states and 2 union territories (UT) - Delhi and
Chandigarh on different aspects to objectively arrive at
the ranking/grading for solar rooftop attractiveness. As Collation of the responses/inputs
part of their efforts to raise awareness and seek inputs
on the model, the EY team reached out to states to
solicit their responses. For a meaningful analysis and to Objective
T
drawdown inferences, these states and UTs are grouped he objective of this exercise, as stated earlier, is
under six regions as per their geographical location: to generate interest and raise awareness about
• North the SARAL index so that the index is acceptable and
recognized all over the country. In addition to this,
• South
the other objective was to seek inputs from all the
• Central stakeholders and incorporate these into the model,
• East wherever feasible. With this in mind, the agenda for the
8
3 state consultations was:
• West
• Brief introduction of project SARAL – its objectives and
• North-east outcome
• Relevant stakeholders involved in SARAL, their

intended objectives and outcomes
• Steering committee members and their involvement in

the project

• Our approach and methodology to rank Indian states
S.no Bucket/parameter Weightages
• Seeking feedback on the parameters listed under the
1 Robustness of policy framework 14%
developed model
Effectiveness of policy support/
Seeking help regarding some data points required to 2 28%
•
implementation
complete the model and ranking
3 Investment climate 15%
• Seeking ideas on launch and outreach plan of the index
4 Consumer experience 31%
5 Business ecosystem 12%

Methodology
EY team prepared a detailed questionnaire. The meetings

or the interviews were guided by the questionnaire and The purpose of this question was to gauge the mindsets
the team analyzed the responses so collected to drive out of the stakeholders and their perceived importance of
meaningful insights. One of the focal areas was to seek the different drivers/parameters to have a bearing on the
inputs to arrive at tentative weightages of the five core solar rooftop sector in their states. The inputs collected
drivers/parameters. The sample of the questionnaire is and collated for this question were analyzed to arrive at
attached in the appendix. the weightages for the drivers/parameters.
Output Each stakeholder gave its own ranking (from 1 to 5) for

the five drivers. After qualitative assessment and analysis
The EY team prepared the minutes of the meetings to of their interactions, the EY team reached at the relative
capture the key ideas and inputs shared. The inputs ranking of these drivers for all the 29 states and the two
collated from the questionnaire were analyzed to arrive at UTs. To arrive at the weightages for these drivers, the
the weightages of the five drivers. The insights received following process was adopted:
were also documented to be presented to the steering
committee for better dialogue. • The ranking of the five drivers was collected and
collated.
• Each driver, say “robustness of policy framework”, was

Analysis and findings summed and the same was done for all the five drivers.
• The sum of the rankings for all the five drivers was
Assigning of weightages again summed to arrive at the grand sum.
O ne of the main objectives of state consultations was • F

► or each driver, its sum was divided by the grand sum
to confirm the validity of the five drivers/parameters to arrive at its relative importance.
on which the SARAL model is built and also to capture • T
► he process was repeated for all the five drivers.
the relative importance of these drivers. The weightages
assigned to each driver/parameter was arrived after • The relative importance so calculated to act as the
assessing the importance different stakeholders gave to weightages for the drivers in the index model.
these drivers/parameters. Illustration: for simplification purposes, assume that
Methodology the states under consideration are only four. The driver
“Robustness of policy framework” received the following
As part of the questionnaire, the following questions were
ranks from the four states – 4, 5, 3 and 4. The sum of
asked to each of the stakeholder contacted so far:
these ranks is 16. The grand sum should be equal to
Out of 5 following drivers, please rank (in a scale of 1 to 5) multiplication of sum of the ranks i.e., 1 to 5 (15) and
according to importance of each of them in assessing state the number of states considered. This amounts to 60
attractiveness for rooftop solar. (15*4). The relative importance of this drivers is reached
at by dividing the sum of ranks for this driver divided by
the grand sum. This comes out to be 27% that will be the
weight for this driver.

• Himachal Pradesh
Zone-wise analysis
• Punjab
Haryana
A
•
s mentioned earlier, in order to have a meaningful
analysis and to drawdown inferences, these states and • Uttarakhand
UTs are grouped under six zones as per their geographical • Uttar Pradesh
location.
In addition to these six states, it also covers two UTs:
North
The north zone comprises of the following six states: • Delhi
• Jammu and Kashmir • Chandigarh
Exhibit 1: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the north zone
Jammu & Kashmir Himachal Pradesh

Stakeholders consulted
Jammu & Kashmir Stakeholders consulted
Jammu & Kashmir
Mode of interaction Mode of interaction

(2) (2)
Punjab Chandigarh
Stakeholders consulted Stakeholders consulted
Jammu & Kashmir
(2)
Haryana Uttarakhand
Jammu & Kashmir
(2)
(3) (2) (2)
Delhi Uttar Pradesh

Jammu & Kashmir
(6)
(7) (2)
State Electricity Regulatory Commission State Nodal Agency Discoms Developers In-person meeting Over e-mail or
telephonic discussion
8
5
Note: Numbers in bracket indicate count of that mode of implementation” and the second to “robustness of policy
interaction framework”. The “consumer experience” is given the third
preference.
The driver “consumer experience” is regarded as the
most important parameter for a state to determine its The investment climate and business ecosystem have
attractiveness for the investment in the solar rooftop been given the least preference by the northern states.
sector. The second essential parameter that emerges is Only Haryana has given the ranking of 3 to business
“effectiveness of policy support/implementation”. The ecosystemwhich makes sense as it has better macro-
sole exception to this is Uttar Pradesh which has given economic conditions viz.-a-viz. its peers. The state
the first preference to “effectiveness of policy support/ has given the lowest rank to the “robustness of policy
framework”.

Exhibit 2: The skewness in the preference of the north zone
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Uttar Pradesh
0 1 2 3 4 5
Robustness of Policy Framework Effectiveness of policy support / Implementation

Investment Climate Consumer Experience
Business Ecosystem (Macro)
The ranks given by the states were used to arrive at the weightages for the five drivers using the methodology
prescribed above. The weightages for the five drivers are as follows:
2 Effectiveness of policy support/implementation 28%
West
The west zone comprises of the following four states:
• Rajasthan
• Gujarat
• Maharashtra
• Goa

Exhibit 3: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the west zone
Rajasthan West
Jammu & Kashmir The west zone comprises of the following four states:
• Rajasthan
Mode of interaction • Gujarat
• Maharashtra
• Goa
Maharashtra Gujrat
Jammu & Kashmir
(2)
(2) (2) (4)
Goa
Jammu & Kashmir
Mode of interaction
(2)
Note: Numbers in bracket indicates the count of that mode of interaction
The driver “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” is the top-ranked driver in the west zone. Only Maharashtra
has given the highest score to “consumer experience” followed by “effectiveness of policy support/implementation”.
The second most preferred driver that emerges here is that of “consumer experience”. The “business ecosystem” is the
least important parameter here in the west zone. Maharashtra has rated “robustness of policy framework” as the least
preferred driver
8
7

Exhibit 4: The skewness in the preference of the west zone
Goa
Gujrat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
0 1 2 3 4 5
Ranks (on a scale of 1 to 5
South
The south zone comprises of the following five states:

• Karnataka
• Telangana
• Kerala
• Andhra Pradesh
• T
► amil Nadu

Exhibit 5: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the south zone
Andhra Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Mode of interaction
(2)
Kerala
(2) (2)
Mode of interaction
(3)
Karnataka Telangana
Jammu & Kashmir
Tamil Nadu
Jammu & Kashmir
(2)
Mode of interaction
(2)
Note: Numbers in bracket indicates the count of that mode of interaction
The driver “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” is the top-ranked driver in the west zone. Only Maharashtra
has given the highest score to “consumer experience” followed by “effectiveness of policy support/implementation”.
The second most preferred driver that emerges here is that of “consumer experience”. The “business ecosystem” is the
least important parameter here in the west zone. Maharashtra has rated “robustness of policy framework” as the least
preferred driver.
8
9

Exhibit 6: The skewness in the preference of the south zone
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Kerala
Karnataka
0 1 2 3 4 5

prescribed above. The weightages for the five drivers are as follows.
Central
The central zone comprises of the following two states:

• Madhya Pradesh
• C
► hhattisgarh

Exhibit 7: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the central zone
Madhya Pradesh
Mode of interaction
(2)
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Stakeholders consulted State Nodal Agency
(5) Discoms
Mode of interaction
Developers
(2 ) (6) In-person meeting
Note: Numbers in brackets indicates count of that mode of interaction
Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are in sync with respect to their least and most preferred drivers. The most preferred
being “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” and least being the business ecosystem. Madhya Pradesh
has stressed on “consumer experience” as the more important parameter (gave rank of 4) than “robustness of policy
framework” (gave rank of 3). The relative importance of these two is reversed for Chhattisgarh. The “investment
climate” is again ranked two by both the states, emerging as the second least important parameter. The trend consistent
in other zones as well.
Exhibit 8: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the central zone
Madhya Pradesh
Chhattisgarh
9
1
1 2 3 4 5


East
The east zone comprises of the following four states:
• Bihar
• Jharkhand
• West Bengal
• Odisha
Exhibit 9: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the east zone
West Bengal
Jharkhand Mode of interaction
Stakeholders consulted (2)
Mode of interaction
(2)
Odisha
Mode of interaction
(2)
State Electricity Regulatory Commission

Bihar State Nodal Agency
Stakeholders consulted Discoms
Developers
Mode of interaction
In-person meeting
Over e-mail or telephonic discussion
Note: Numbers in brackets indicates count of that mode of interaction
The four states have been unanimous in their preference of the five drivers. The driver that, in the opinion of the east
zone, should have the maximum weightage in determining the attractiveness of the states is the “consumer experience”.
The next in the list is the “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” followed by the “robustness of policy
framework”. The least important parameter here too is that of “business ecosystem”.

Exhibit 10: The skewness in the preference of the east zone
Odisha
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
0 1 2 3 4 5

North-east
The north-east zone comprises of the following eight states:
• Arunachal Pradesh
• Sikkim
• Assam
• Nagaland
• Manipur
• Tripura
9
3

Exhibit 11: Stakeholders consulted and their mode of interaction in the north-east zone
Sikkim Arunachal Pradesh

Nagaland
Assam Manipur
T
► ripura
Stakeholders consulted Mizoram Stakeholders consulted

(3)
In-person meeting
Meghalaya
Stakeholders consulted Discoms
Over e-mail or telephonic discussion
Mode of interaction State Electricity Regulatory Commission
(2) Developers State Nodal Agency
Exhibit 12: The skewness in the preference of the north zone
Odisha
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
0 1 2 3 4


Overall picture
As seen above “consumer experience” and “effectiveness are very close with “consumer experience” having a
of policy support/implementation” are deemed to weightage of 30% while it is 29% for the “effectiveness
be of utmost importance in assessing a state for its of policy support/implementation”. Together these two
attractiveness for solar rooftop. Most states have given have a combined weightage of 59%. The least important
either the rank of 4 or 5 to these two parameters with a parameter was consistent throughout all the zones i.e.,
few exceptions. The weightages for these two parameters “business ecosystem” with an overall weightage
of just 8%.
A detailed analysis of the five drivers is as follows:
Exhibit 13: State-wise ranks given to the parameter “robustness of policy framework”
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Odisha
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
9
5
0 1 2 3 4 5
The “robustness of policy framework” has an overall weightage of 18% as per the stakeholders. Only a few states have
given it the rank of four and none has given it the rank of 5. On the other hand, Delhi, Punjab, Haryana and Maharashtra
has given it a rank of 1. This shows that this parameter is moderately important in the overall picture.

Exhibit 14: State-wise ranks given to the parameter “effectiveness of policy support/implementation”
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Odhisa
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
0 1 2 3 4 5
The parameter “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” emerges as the one of the most influential parameters
for grading/ranking the states for their solar rooftop attractiveness. None of the states have given it the rank of 3 or less
thus verifying the intuitive reasoning that unless a law or rule is followed, the mere existence of it does not have any
serious consequences. It has an overall weightage of 29% in the model.

Exhibit 15: State-wise ranks given to the parameter “investment climate”
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Odhisa
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
0 1 2 3
The investment climate has an overall weightage of 15% as per the stakeholders. Only a few states have given it the rank
of three and no one has given it the rank of 4 or higher. In fact, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand have given it a
rank of 1. This shows that this parameter is less important in the overall model of SARAL.
9
7

Exhibit 16: State-wise ranks given to the parameter “consumer experience”
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Odisha
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
0 1 2 3 4 5
Source: SARAL excel model
The parameter, consumer experience, emerges as the most relevant parameter for grading/ranking the states for their
solar rooftop attractiveness. None of the states have given it the rank of 2 or less with over three-fifth of the states
keeping it as the rank of 5. This parameter has the highest weightage of 30% as per the EY analysis.

Exhibit 17: State-wise ranks given to the parameter “business ecosystem”
Goa
Manipur
Meghalaya
Assam
Arunachal Pradesh
Sikkim
Jammu and Kashmir
Himachal Pradesh
Uttarakhand
Chandigarh
Punjab
Delhi
Haryana
Telangana
Andhra Pradesh
Odisha
Jharkhand
Bihar
West Bengal
Uttar Pradesh
Tamil Nadu
Gujarat
Rajasthan
Maharashtra
Madhya Pradesh
Kerala
Karnataka
Chhattisgarh
0 1 2 3 4 5
Source: SARAL excel model

The investment climate has an overall weightage of 8% as per the stakeholders. With the sole exception of Haryana, no
other state has given it the rank of 3 or more. A large majority, i.e., 80% of the states have given this parameter the
lowest rank of 1 thus making it the least important parameters for the grading/ranking process.
9

4.2.2. Regional workshop - Bangalore
“SARAL - The State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index” Round table discussion on 13 July 2018
Round table discussion no: 01 Venue: EY office, Bangalore
Purpose of regional workshop
B usiness ecosystem: Briefing regional stakeholders

about ranking approach and methodology
• Net metering system application and the role of
DISCOMS need to be clearly demarcated from
the central governing authorities so that every
Key discussion pointsattractiveness for rooftop solar.
stakeholder is clear about their roles
• Discussion 1 – What are the key barriers to uptake of and responsibilities.
rooftop solar in India?
• The definition of rooftop solar and lack of clarity
• The panel listed down the following barriers hindering was addressed by various panel members to the
uptake of rooftop solar in India: joint secretary.
• The industry bodies shared their problems
regarding the application procedure right from
pre–installation, installation and post-installation
stages of setting up rooftop solar and requested
the joint secretary to ease the procedures as soon
as possible.
• The panel also agreed in unison that consumer

awareness is a major barrier as a lot of them are
not aware of the benefits of RTS, cost of RTS and
different models associated to it.
• The panel also shared that there are a lot of policy

and regulatory issues that need to be simplified
and or resolved.
• Discussion 2 – What factors would you consider to • Robustness of policy in the state
rank Indian states based on rooftop
• Investment climate (suggested to add the business
solar attractiveness?
enablers in this driver)
• The following parameters were considered important
• Macro level parameters (suggested to remove as
to rank states on rooftop solar attractiveness:
these were deviating from the subject)
• Ease
 of procedures and clarity on net metering
• The panel also added that for rooftop solar to
• Consumer
 awareness completely take off in India, residential rooftop
solar needs to expand, as it has the most untapped
• Ease
 of doing business and ease of financing
potential. In the commercial segment, many
• Policies
 and regulatory affairs companies are turning to rooftop solar to meet their
• Discussion 3 – Overall feedback on the model, factors energy demands, however, due to high cost of rooftop
and comments on the indicator list? generating systems, residential solar is still not able to
lead in installation.
• The panel appreciated for taking up such an activity
and expressed that the parameters and the scoring Analysis of questionnaire assessment on the
indicators were able to justify the holistic view of the participant’s feedback Number of participants: 20
solar rooftop attractiveness in the states. Due to this, While garnering feedback from the participants, a
it was easier for the wider audience to understand survey form was circulated to understand stakeholders’
the discussion. opinion about assigned weightages to different drivers of
• P
 anel gave the following order of preference and parameters. The survey form was developed with the aim
weightage on five drivers: of getting a quantitative rating at a scale of 1 to 5 for all
the drivers based on their importance in final ranking and
• Effectiveness of policy support/implementation few other qualitative feedback on the model developed.
• Consumer experience
Feedback of the participants

Analysis of feedback given by participants is summarized below
How Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
Needs great impetus 45%
Ok But needs support 30%
Medium 25%
Good 0%
Very Good 0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
• Two-third of the participants (~75%) believe that rooftop solar sector need support to grow further
1
0

2. What are the areas/sector that need support?
Areas/ sector that need support
100%
80% 40% 35%

60% 70%
60%
25%
40% 5% 55%
20%
20%2 0% 20%
15%1 5% 10%1 0%
0%
Government Implementation support Investment Creating mass
initiatives/policy level from DISCOMs awareness
Not at all concerned Slightly concerned Somewhat concerned

Moderately concerned Extremely concerned
• The participant’s exhibit concern about all the facets identified, however, implementation support from DISCOMs and
creating mass awareness are the areas that they think need more support.
3. The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lenses of which stakeholder/stakeholders?
The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lenses of which stakeholder
5%
15%
20%
60%
DISCOM Policy maker Investor End consumer Developers/EPC players
• The market is consumer driven and residential solar is already facing challenges such as lack of
awareness among consumers
• Participants reflect the same view, as around 60% believe that the index should be seen from
end consumers’ perspective.

4. Indicate the relative importance on the parameters?
Parameters preference for State ranking
100% 5%
90% 10%
80% 40% 45%
55% 50%
70%
60%
50% 25%1 5% 70%
40%
30% 25%3 5%
25% 30%
20%
10% 15% 10% 5%
5% 5% 15%
5% 10%
0%
Robustness of Effectiveness of Investment Consumer Macro
policy framework policy support/ climate experience parameters
Implementation
Not a priority Low priority Medium priority High priority Essential
• T
 he participants were asked to give feedback on the parameters suggested on the basis of the priority for ranking
the state, 55% of them said that “robustness of policy framework” is the highest priority to rank the state, followed
by “effectiveness of policy support/implementation” having 50% preference as the second highest parameters in
ranking the state
5. Under policy front, what are the important parameters in state ranking?
Parameters having major affect under policy front
100%
5%
90% 15% 15%
80% 10%
45% 25% 60%
70% 65%
60%
50%
60%
40% 25%
30% 10% 60% 25%
20%
25% 20% 10%
10% 15% 5% 5…
5%
0%
Technical details Subsidies Billing mechanisms RPO and its User interface (single
(DT connection limit /other schemes (settlement times trends in the state window mechanism,
etc. ) mentioned in supporting rooftop and rates etc. ) deemed approval etc.)
the net metering
regulation?
No affect Minor affect Neutral Moderate affect Major affect
• 6
 5% of participants
1
0
3 said, “billing mechanisms” will have a major affect under policy front, while 60% of participants
voted neutral affect to subsidies/other schemes supporting rooftop and RPO and their trends in the state.

6. Under implementation front, what is the most important parameter to rank a state?
Preference under Implementation front

100%
90% 25%
80% 40%
70% 5%
65%
60% 85% 80%
50% 20%
50%
40%
30%
20% 30%
20% 5% 5% 5% 10%
10% 5% 5% 5%
15% 10%
0% 5% 5% 5%
Financial health Ease of consumer Focus of Comparison Degree of
of DISCOMs application process state/DISCOMs of non RE & RE conformit to clauses
on renewables tariffs in the state mentioned
in regulation
• As rooftop solar projects belong to a consumer-driven sector, majority of the participants believe that under
“implementation front”, if the process of implementing the rooftop solar project is smooth, a fewer hurdles in the
process points to a swifter setting up procedure and hence more uptake in the sector. Thus, indicators like “ease of
consumer application process” and “degree of conformity to clauses mentioned in regulation” having 85% and 80%,
respectively will have a major effect on the index.
7. Under investment climate driver, what is the most important factor in state ranking?
Parameters preference under investment bucket
100%
90% 20%
80% 40%
70% 20% 60%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% 55% 60%
30%
20% 20%
10% 5%
10% 10%
0%
Competitiveness Feasibility of Market
ofrooftop solar rooftop in the state maturity
Low priority Medium priority High priority Essential
• U
 nder the investment climate driver, 70% of participants rated competitiveness of rooftop solar i.e., charges
associated with a rooftop solar system and pitting them against what a regular consumer pays for electricity, as the
driver of rooftop solar driver.

8. Which parameter will be having the maximum weightage under consumer experiences?
Parameters preference under consumer experience
100%
90% 25%
80%
70%
75% 70%
60%
50%
40% 70%
30%
20% 15%
20%
10% 5% 15%
5%
0%
Cost considerations Consumer acceptance Present power outage
( current retail tariff & rise of rooftop solar (awareness) scenario in the state
etc in past years.)
Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority
• E
 xperiences of the end consumers are a very important factor in evaluating the offtake potential in the state, thus,
cost consideration was suggested by 75% of the participants as the high priority under consumer experience driver,
followed by present power outage scenario in the state having 70% preference.
9. Under business ecosystem, which parameter is the most important in state ranking?
Parameters having priority under business ecosystem
100%
90% 25%
80%
70% 70%
20%
60%
50%
40%
30% 55%
20% 30%
10% 5%
0%
Economic outlook Political outlook
• A
 ccording to the participants, political outlook will have less impact on the macro driver. Over 55% of the
participants recommended to consider political outlook on low priority for macro driver and 70% weightage was
given to the 105
economic well-being of the state and its future outlook.

10. Overall feedback on “SARAL” model developed to rank Indian states?
Feedback on the SARAL model developed
10% 10%
15%
65%
Extremely unlikely Unlikely Neutral likely Extremely likely
• 6
 5% of participants liked the “SARAL” model developed to rank the state depending upon the attractiveness towards
solar rooftop installation and majority of them added that this kind of initiative will create a conducive environment
for solar rooftop installations, encourage investment and lead to an accelerated growth of the sector in the states.

Questionnaire
SARAL Stakeholders Survey - Bangalore, 13-July-2018

Stakeholder’s name :
Contact number :
Email ID :
Entity :
Question 1. What do you think how Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
Ok but needs Needs great
Very good Good Medium
support impetus
Question 2. Which are the areas the sector needs support and please indicate the level at a scale of 1-5
a Government initiatives/policy level 1 2 3 4 5
b Implementation support from DISCOMs 1 2 3 4 5
c Investment 1 2 3 4 5
d Creating mass awareness 1 2 3 4 5
e Please mention if any others: 1 2 3 4 5
Question 3. Which are the parameters you think should be considered in ranking states based on rooftop attractiveness
Question 4. According to you, the rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lenses of which
stakeholder/stakeholders
Developers/
DISCOM Policy maker Investor End consumer
EPC players
Question 5. Please indicate (use a tick) relative importance of the following parameters for the state ranking purpose
a Robustness of policy framework 1 2 3 4 5

b Effectiveness of policy support/ Implementation 1 2 3 4 5
c Investment climate 1 2 3 4 5
d Consumer experience 1 2 3 4 5
e Macro parameters 1 2 3 4 5
Question 6. Under policy front, what do you think is the most important(rate at a scale of 1-5) in state ranking?
a Technical details ( DT connection limit etc. ) mentioned in

1 2 3 4 5
the net metering regulation?
b Subsidies/other schemes supporting rooftop 1 2 3 4 5
c Billing mechanisms ( settlement times and rates etc. ) 1 2 3 4 5
d RPO and its trends in the state 1 2 3 4 5
e User interface ( single window mechanism, deemed
1 2 3 4 5
approval etc.)
Comments
if any:
Question 7. Under
1
0
7
implementation front, what do you think is the most important(rate at a scale of 1-5) in state
ranking?
a Financial health of DISCOMs 1 2 3 4 5
b Ease of consumer application process 1 2 3 4 5
c Focus of state/DISCOMs on renewables 1 2 3 4 5
d Comparison of non RE & RE tariffs in the state 1 2 3 4 5
e Degree of conformity to clauses mentioned in regulation
( eg. timelines from application submission to final 1 2 3 4 5
commissioning
Comments
if any:

Question 8. Under investment bucket, what do you think is the most important(rate at a scale of 1-4)in state ranking?
a Competitiveness of rooftop solar 1 2 3 4
b Feasibility of rooftop in the state ( rooftop area, dust level, irradiance etc. ) 1 2 3 4
c Market maturity ( availability of developers, consumer awareness etc. ) 1 2 3 4
d Ease of financing ( availability of debt capital etc. ) 1 2 3 4
Comments
if any:
Question 9. Under consumer experience, what do you think is the most important(rate at a scale of 1-3)in state ranking?
a Cost considerations ( current retail tariff & rise etc in past years.) 1 2 3
b Consumer acceptance of rooftop solar (awareness) 1 2 3
c Present power outage scenario in the state 1 2 3
Suggestions
if any:
Question 10. Under macro parameters, what do you think is the most important(rate at a scale of 1-3)in state ranking?
a Economic outlook 1 2 3
b Political outlook 1 2 3
c Other business enablers(FDI inflow etc.) 1 2 3
Comments
if any:
Question 11. Overall feedback ( rate at a scale of 1 - 5 )on the SARAL model developed to rank Indian states
1 2 3 4 5
Suggestion
if any:

4.2.3. Regional workshop - Kolkata
SARAL - The State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index” Round table discussion on 17 August 2018
Round table discussion no: 01 Venue: EY office, Bangalore
Key discussion points • A

 few participants in the panel reiterated that in
India, rooftop solar sector is growing but delay in
Discussion 1 – What are the key barriers hindering uptake
getting subsidies due to stringent administrative
of rooftop solar in India?
procedures and lack of accountability in the SNA
According to the panel, key barriers hindering uptake of hierarchy to disburse these subsidies is creating
RTS in India are: hurdles in gaining popularity.
• Difficulty
 in accessing debt finance as the subsidy • The
 MNRE needs to remove all the remaining
schemes cannot support the sector for a longer roadblocks to encourage rooftop solar power to
period of time. feed their solar power into the grid. Thus, bringing
• Lack
 of financing instruments/solutions is a major DISCOMs at the forefront will be crucial for the
hurdle in the RTS market which needs an urgent sector to grow.
attention. The PSU or commercial banks are • Rooftop
 solar still remains a relatively new
averse in debt financing rooftop solar projects technology in India and due to this, there is a
due to lack of due diligence knowledge and proven perception that it may not perform as expected
operational performance of the projects. over its lifetime.
• Capital
 expenditure is high for residential sector, • There
 is another major challenge in the form of
the RTS revolution has to be led by the common its storage. Currently, the cost of a rooftop solar
man but many consumers may not have the system with battery storage could be between
liquidity to pay for the entire solar system upfront INR90,000 and INR 1,35,000 per kW, depending
and they are also skeptical about the total life of on its voltage. Considering that the one backed
the plant. up with storage will significantly increase the
• In
 West Bengal,
1
0
9 the challenge in the residential CAPEX leads to limiting the options of mass
segment lies in getting an access to the roof commercialization.
area for a longer period. Culturally, people love • on its voltage. Considering that the one backed
to spend time with community in gathering and up with storage will significantly increase the
other social activities on the roof premises, thus CAPEX leads to limiting the options of mass
there are chances for them not be willing to use commercialization.
the same place for a technology, which lacks
popularity in India.

Discussion 2 – What are the key barriers hindering uptake • Limited
 reach and appeal of the net-metering
of rooftop solar in West Bengal? The panel suggests the program in the state. Marketing and outreach
following observation as the key barriers hindering uptake campaign needs to be bolstered.
of rooftop solar in West Bengal:
Discussion 3 – What is the overall feedback on the model,
• Limited
 awareness and understanding of RTS factors and comments on the indicator list?
among consumers regarding costs and
The panel appreciated the ASSOCHAM and EY initiatives
payback period.
of initiating such an activity to holistically support
• Confusion
 on net-metering meter specifications the sector. The panelists expressed that though the
(solar generation meter and net meter) robustness of policy framework and implementation of the
among the consumers. policy will guide the index, the business ecosystem
will have the least impact as the involved data might not
• Lack
 of information on how to select project
be changeable.
developers’ selection and limited interaction
between the utilities and the end consumers. • The panel gave the following order of preference
and weightage on the five drivers:
• West
 Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission
(WBERC) mentioned in the net metering guideline • E
► ffectiveness of policy support/implementation
that a minimum cap of 5 kW for system sizes in
• R
► obustness of policy in the state
West Bengal for the end users. This limit hinders
applications as a lot of end users have sanctioned • C
load way less than 5 kW. • I ► nvestment climate
• The
 existing provision of system applications • M
► acro level parameters
is only for consumers having three phase
connectivity. It also limits the end users to apply
and a lot of residential users don’t have three
phase connectivity yet.
Analysis of questionnaire assessment on the participant’s feedback

Number of participants: 20
While garnering feedback from the participants, a survey form was circulated to understand stakeholders’ opinions about
assigning weightages to different drivers of parameters. The form was developed with the aim of getting a quantitative
rating on a scale of 1 to 5 for all the drivers based on their importance in the final ranking and a few other qualitative
feedbacks on the models developed.

Feedback of the participants
1. How Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
How Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
5%
30%
65%
Very Good Good Medium Ok But needs support Needs great impetus
• M
 ore than 95% of the participants believe that rooftop solar sector needs support, and/or great impetus to achieve
MNRE’s 2022 target.
2. What are the areas/sectors that need support?
In areas the sector needs support
100%
80%
55%
65% 70%
60% 85%
40%
30%
25% 10%
20%
15% 15% 20%
10%
0%
Government Implementation support InvestmentC reating mass
not at all concerned Slightly concerned Somewhat concerned

• The participants exhibit concerns about all the facets identified, but government intervention at policy level and
creating mass awareness are the areas that need most support.

3. The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from the lenses of which stakeholder/stakeholders?
The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lense of which stakeholder
10% 10%
15%
65%
• T
 he market is consumer driven and residential solar is already beset with challenges such as lack of
awareness among consumers.
• P
 articipants reflect the same view, as around 65% believe that the index should be seen from
end consumers’ perspective.
100%
20% 15%
80%
65% 30%
70% 70%
60%
65%
40%
15% 55%
20% 20%
30%
20% 15%
10%
0%
Implementation
• T
 he participants were asked to give feedback on the parameters suggested on the basis of the priority for ranking
the state. Seventy percent of them said “robustness of policy framework” is essential to rank the state, while
“consumer experience” also holds a major concern from 70% of the participants.

5. Under policy front, what is the important parameters in state ranking?
Parameters Preference under policy front
100%
10%1 0%
20%
80% 15%
55%
60% 75% 55%
65%
40% 75% 10%
5%
20% 30%
20% 5% 30%
0% 5% 5%
the net metering
regulation?
• S
 eventy-five percent of participants said, “technical details” will have major affect under policy front, while 55% of
participants voted that “user interface” will have a major impact under policy front.
6. Under implementation front, what is the most important parameter to rank a state?
Preference Under Implementation front
100%
15% 15%
80% 10% 45%
70%
60% 85%
65%
40% 70%
55% 10%
20% 5%
20% 15%
5% 10%
0%
on renewables tariffs in the state mentioned in
regulation
1
3
• A
 s rooftop solar projects fall under consumer-driven sector, majority of the participants believe that on
implementation front, there are a few hurdles to a swifter setting up procedure. Thus, indicators like “ease of
consumer application process” and “degree of conformity to clauses mentioned in regulation” having 85% and 70%,
respectively, will have a major effect on the index.

7. Under investment climate driver, what is the most important parameter in state ranking?
Parameters preference under Investment climate
100%
20%
80%
60%
70% 75%
60%
70%
40%
35%1 5% 5%
20%
10% 15%
5% 5%
5% 10%
0%
• Under the investment climate driver, the participants felt that “market maturity” holds the maximum weightage.
Seventy-five percent of them believe that the existing market conditions i.e., number of developers, industry
workforce and the number of C&I consumers in rooftop solar sector will improve the investment in the state.
8. Which parameters will be having the maximum weightage under consumer experiences ?
100%
5%
80%
40%
60%
60%
90%
40%
20% 55%
20%
20%
10%
0%
etc in past years.)
• E
 xperience of the end consumer is a very important factor in evaluating the offtake potential in the state. Thus
“consumer acceptance of rooftop solar” was suggested by 90% of the participants as the high priority under
consumer experience driver, followed by “cost consideration” in the state having 60%.

9. Under business ecosystem, what is the most important in state ranking?
Under business ecosystem
100%
20%
80%
65%
60%
70%
40%
20% 25%
10%1 0%
0%
• A
 ccording to the participants, “political outlook” will have less impact on the macro driver. Over 65% of the
participants recommended to consider economic well-being of the state and its future outlook as the important
driver under business ecosystem.
10. What is the overall feedback on SARAL model developed to rank Indian states ?
20%
70%
• S
 eventy percent of the participants like SARAL model developed to rank the state depending upon the attractiveness
towards solar rooftop installation and majority of them added that such an initiative will create a conducive
environment15for solar rooftop installations, encourage investment and lead to accelerated growth of the sector
in the state.

4.2.4. Regional workshop – New Delhi
SARAL - The State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index” On 18 October 2018
Round table discussion No: 03 Venue: ASSOCHAM Corporate Office, New Delhi
Discussion 1 – What are the key barriers hindering uptake • Few

 participants in the panel reiterated the fact
of rooftop solar in India? that in India the lack of interest by the lenders,
lack of awareness among the MSMEs, inability of
According to the panel, key barriers hindering uptake of
MSME to absorb additional debt and opportunity
RTS in India are:
cost of the investment serves the biggest block to
•   Presently in India, there are two dominant take up the rooftop solar system
business models for rooftop solar: the capital
• The
 MNRE needs to remove all the remaining
expenditure (CAPEX) model and the renewable
roadblocks to encourage rooftop solar power to
energy supply company (RESCO) model. These
feed their solar power into the grid thus bringing
models work fine for larger commercial and
DISCOMs at the forefront will be crucial for the
industrial (C&I) players who have access to upfront
sector to grow.
capital, or can obtain commercial loans. However,
rooftop solar remains constrained among smaller • There
 is still a widespread perception that
C&I players, micro, small and medium enterprises installation of rooftop solar panels needs a large
(MSME), and residential customers due to lack of investment, and people are not always aware
financial resources and inability to access debt. of the financial incentives available. The central
and state governments must do a something of
• The
 biggest barrier that the model faces for MSME
reaching out to resident welfare associations and
clients is perceived lack of creditworthiness due to
community groups to encourage people to shed
lack of credit information/ratings.
their inhibitions and embrace rooftop solar,
• Capital
 expenditure is high for residential sector,
• Rooftop
 solar remains a relatively new technology
the rooftop solar system revolution has to be led
in India and thereafter, majorly in residential
by the common man but many consumers may
sector, there is a perception that it may not
not have the liquidity to pay for the entire system
perform as expected over its lifetime.
upfront and even the consumers are sceptical
about total plant life.

Discussion 2 – What are the key barriers hindering uptake • However,
 the challenges on the ground are more
of rooftop solar in Delhi? complex. Developers stress that there is a problem
of lack of uniform roofs in Delhi and the fact that
The benefits of rooftop solar are clear – it produces zero
roofs are often used for various purposes that
emissions, does not require the additional use of land and
doesn’t leave enough space to install big panels.
the installation costs have decreased drastically.
A 10 KW solar plant that can power three air-
•   Limited awareness and understanding of RTS conditioners and is sufficient for a three-bedroom
among the consumer, cost, and payback period apartment needs around 1,000 sq. ft. of
• Confusion
 on net-metering meter specifications terrace area.
(solar generation meter & net meter) among the Discussion 3 – Overall Feedback on the Model, Factors
consumers and Comments on the indicator list?
• a
 majority of rooftop solar installations are in the •  he panel appreciated the ASSOCHAM &
T
C&I segment, primarily due to a business case EY initiatives of initiating such an activity to
for rooftop solar tariffs against the prevailing holistically support the sector
electricity tariffs. Market expansion in the C&I,
• Panel
 gave the following order of preference and
however, has been limited to large corporations
weightage on five buckets:
and high-credit rated entities, and is reaching a
plateau as a result. • E
► ffectiveness of policy support /
implementation
• In
 Delhi, everyone puts the water tank on the
south side of the roof and it is the direction where • R
► obustness of Policy in the State
you get maximum solar energy. Plus, you have
• I ► nvestment Climate
various things on roofs which reduces the available
area needed for solar. • C
► onsumer Experience
• M
► acro level parameters
Analysis of Questionnaire Assessment on the Participant’s Feedback

Number of participants: 21
While garnering feedback from the participants, a survey form was circulated to understand stakeholders’ opinion
about assigning weightages to different buckets of parameters. The survey form was developed with the aim of getting
a quantitative rating at a scale of 1 to 5 for all the buckets based on their importance in final ranking and few other
qualitative feedback on the model developed.
Feedback of the Participants
1. How Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
What do you think how Indian rooftop solar sector is doing?
10% 0%5%
10%
1
7
75%
Very Good Good Medium Ok But needs support Needs great impetus
• More than 75% of the participants believe that rooftop solar sector needs support, and/ or great impetus.

2. What are the areas/ sector need support?
In areas the sector needs support
100%
80%
55%
65% 65%
60% 80%
40%
30%
25% 10%
20%
20% 15% 25%
10%
0%
Government Implementation support InvestmentC reating mass
not at all concerned Slightly concerned Somewhat concerned

• The participant’s exhibit concern about all the facets identified, but Government intervention at policy level &
creating mass awareness are the areas that need most support.
3. The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lenses of which Stakeholder/ Stakeholders?
The rooftop solar attractiveness index should be seen from lense of which stakeholder
5% 5%
10%
80%
• A
 ccording to the participants the rooftop system is always consumer driven as around 80% believe that the index
should be seen from end consumer perspective.

100%
15% 10%
80%
75% 25%
85% 80%
60%
75%
40%
10% 65%
20% 10%
20%
15% 10%
5%
0%
Implementation
• The participants were asked to give feedback on the parameters suggested based on the priority for ranking the
state, 85% of them says “Robustness of policy framework” is the essential to rank the state, While Consumer
experience is also holds the major concern from the participants that is – 80%.
5. Under policy front, what is the important parameters in state ranking ?
Parameters Preference under policy front
100%
10% 5%
20%
80% 15%
65%
60% 85% 55%
65%
40% 80% 15%
5%
20% 25%
10% 5% 30%
0% 5% 5%
the net metering
regulation?
• 8
 5% of participants said, “Technical details” comprises of DT capacity, HT/LT consumer, Sanction load or Connected
load of the consumer
1
9 will have major affect under policy front, while 65% of participants voted “User interface” as
having major impact under policy front.

6. Under implementation front, what is the most important to rank a state?
Preference Under Implementation front
100%
15% 15%
80% 10% 45%
70%
60% 85%
65%
40% 70%
55% 10%
20% 5%
20% 15%
5% 10%
0%
on renewables tariffs in the state mentioned in
regulation
• M
 ajority of the participants believes that under implementation front, fewer hurdles in the process points to a swifter
setting up procedure and hence more uptake in the sector. Thus, indicators like “Ease of consumer application
process” and “Degree of conformity to clauses mentioned in regulation” having 85% and 70% respectively will have
major effect on the Index.
7. Under investment climate bucket, what is the most important in state ranking?
Parameters preference under Investment climate
100%
15%
80%
60%
65% 75%
60%
70%
40%
35% 20% 5%
20%
10% 15%
5% 5%
5% 10%
0%
• Under the investment climate bucket, according to the participants’ “Market maturity” holds the maximum
weightage. 75% of the participants believes that the existing market conditions regarding number of developers,
industry workforce, the number of C&I consumer in rooftop solar sector will improve the investment in the state.

8. Which parameter will be having the maximum weightage under consumer experiences?
100%
5%
80%
40%
50%
60%
85%
40%
30% 55%
20%
20%
15%
0%
etc in past years.)
• T
 he rooftop solar system is a consumer driven market, thus “Consumer acceptance of rooftop solar” was suggested
by 85% of the participants as the high priority under consumer experience bucket, followed by “Cost consideration”
in the state having 50%.
9. Under business ecosystem, what is the most important in state ranking?
Under business ecosystem
100%
25%
80%
70%
60%
65%
40%
20% 20%
10%1 0%
0%

1
2
• A
 ccording to the participants, “Political outlook” will have less impact on the macro bucket. Over 70% of the
participants recommended to consider economic well-being of the state and its future outlook as the important
bucket under business ecosystem.

10. Overall feedback on the “SARAL” model developed to rank Indian States?
15%
80%
• 8
 0% of participants like the “SARAL” model developed to rank the state depending upon the attractiveness towards
solar rooftop installation.

4.3. Previous SARAL models
SARAL - The State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index” On 18 October 2018
Initially four key areas of focus or the drivers for

The first model the rooftop solar sector were identified. These were
macro-economic driver, energy market and generation,
transmission and distribution driver, rooftop value chain
A s a preliminary step, an extensive desk review of other

available indices in the market was undertaken to
develop the premise of the SARAL index. The four indices
driver and end consumer attractiveness which were
thought upon as the engines of growth of solar rooftop.
The 29 states and 2 UTs were to be ranked based on
studied in detail were: their attractiveness for solar rooftop market as measured
• The World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business by the potency of these four drivers. These four drivers
• Solar Power Rocks’ United States Solar Power Ranking consituted of nine sub-drivers that were be measured
through 24 parameters which collectively had 57 scoring
• Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index indicators.
• United States Renewable Energy Attractiveness Index
Figure 13: The initial SARAL model
Datasets
Subdrivers 24 57
04 09 Parameters
1
2
3 Drivers

Macro parameters Importance of decarbonisation
• CO2 emissions per capita

Economic stability
• Past history of achieving RPO
• Credit rating
• GDP per capita

Contract Timelines
• NCAER economy rating
• Solar contracts pre 2014/Solar contracts
• Fiscal management Index
post 2014
• GDP growth
• Thermal contracts pre2000/Thermal contracts
post 2000
Political stability • Wind power contracts pre 2009/Wind power
contracts post 2009
• Corruption perceptions index
• Governance and political stability

Need for Solar rooftops
• Transparency of government policy making
• Power Deficit
• Strength of legal rights
• Availability of Non-RE resources
Investment climate Feasibility of Solar rooftop
• Ease of doing business Index FDI inflow • Land use and availability
• Strength of investor protection
• MSME 5 year growth rate Transmission Charges
• Ease of access to loans • Transmission open access charge
• Wheeling charges
Energy market and GTD

Grid Management
Energy supply and demand
• Peak Deficit
• Tariff rise in last 3 years
• Peak Deficit timings
• Solar in energy mix %
• Balancing reserve
• Electricity consumption growth
• Forecasted supply growth

Cost of Distribution
Level of political support • Average Cost Per Unit for Non-RE
• Solar targets/obligations • Distribution open access charge
• Exemptions provided
• State subsidy provided DISCOMS
• Support policies • ACS-ARR gaps (Operational losses)
Competitiveness of Solar Power • Debts of DISCOMS
• Cost of electricity • AT&C losses
• Discovered tariff in the market Power Reliability
• Current electricity tarff • SAIDI
• SAIFI


Rooftop value chain End Consumer Attractiveness
Power offtake attractiveness Consumer Acceptance
• Net metering payment settlement time • Level of consumer acceptance
Technology maturity
TC&I consumers
• Rooftop Installed capacity
• Industrial clusters to be constructed
• Average project size
• % of C&I consumers
Developers
• Number of SNA empanelled developers
Financers
• Banks & NBFCs having MSME Lending Schemes
Insurers
• Insurers
The revised model
T he initial model of SARAL was much deliberated and it

was found to be insufficient to capture the nuances of
the Indian rooftop solar sector. The main idea behind this
of 67 scoring indicators. The number of scoring indicator
subsequently came down to 46 after consultation with
various stakeholders.
elaborate exercise of creating an index to measure the
attractiveness of the states is to bring out key actionable
points for different stakeholders, adopting those that can
set the stage right for profileration of rooftop solar in the
country.
Figure 14: The interim SARAL model
Moreover, the need was to make the wider audiences
understand the phrases used for ranking different states.
Thus, the model was revised to keep it simple with
realistic, measurable and quantifiable scoring indicators.
The new model so developed is based on five broad 05
drivers of parameters that would collectively determine parameters
the attractiveness of a state to drive investment in the
solar rooftop space, which are the robustness of the
policy framework,5 the effectiveness of that policy
1
2
support or the implementation driver, the investment
climate of a state, the consumer experience and the
business ecosystem. These parameters have been chosen SARAL
to provide different angles to the intended user to judge framework
the performance of a state on each of these individual
parameters as well as to have a comprehensive view 67 20
through the SARAL score. They further constituted 20 Scoring Sub-
sub-parameters that were to be measured on the basis indicators parameters

Robustness of the policy framework Effectiveness of policy support/implementation
Level of policy support State of affairs of DisComs
• Comprehensiveness of net/gross metering policy in • ACS-ARR gaps (Operational losses)

the state • AT&C losses
• Eligibility to participate under REC mechanism • Debts of DISCOMS
• Special benefits/support systems available for

developers in GRPV segment
Ease of application
• Single Window Mechanism
• Availability of interactive consumer platforms for
• Deemed Approval Process rooftop solar
• Ease of availing state subsidies • Availability of online portal for end user application
• Availability of other state schemes • Average time taken from application to system
installationmer capacity
Covenants
Power offtake attractiveness
• Maximum load that is allowed per prosumer
• Net metering payment settlement time
• Permissible cumulative capacity of solar vis-a-vis
regional distribution transformer capacity
Fulfilment of commitments
• Past history of achieving RPO
Billing Mechanism
• Rooftop Installed capacity
• Settlement Time
• Solar in energy mix %
• Price offered by Discom for buying power
from prosumer
Responsiveness to policy changes
• Solar contracts pre 2014/Solar contracts post 2014
Solar commitments
• Thermal contracts pre 2000/Thermal contracts
• Solar commitments
post 2000
• Wind power contracts pre 2009/Wind power contracts

post 2009
Effectiveness of policy support/implementation
State of affairs of DisComs

• ACS-ARR gaps (Operational losses) Investment Climate
• AT&C losses Competitiveness of solar electricity

• Debts of DISCOMS • Average Cost Per Unit for Non-RE
• Cost of electricity
Ease of application
• Distribution open access charge
• Availability of interactive consumer platforms for
• Transmission open access charge
rooftop solar
• Wheeling charges
• Availability of online portal for end user application
• Average time taken from application to system

installationmer capacity

Feasibility of solar rooftop Business ecosystem
• Average dust level
Economic oultook
• Balancing reserve
• GSDP per capita
• Realisable GRPV potential in the state
• GSDP growth
• Coincidence of solar generation with peak demand
Business enablers
Maturity of the market
• Ease of doing business index
• Average project size
• FDI inflow
• Number of solar developers
• Strength of investor protection
• Share of C&I consumers in total GRPV installation in
the state • MSME 5 year growth rate
• Total solar industry workforce • Ease/progress ofimplementation of other schemes

(such as smart cities)
• NCAER economy rating of the state

Driver for solar-rooftop uptake
• Current electricity tariff
Political outlook
• Forecasted supply growth
• Credit rating of the state
• Electricity consumption growth
• State Government’s outlook towards GRPV
• Peak Deficit
• Strength of legal rights to protect investors
• Transparency of government policy making

Prioritization of solar
• Institutional architecture
• Focus of state government to meet power deficit
through renewable sources • Perceived corruption in the state
• Focus on other renewable resources in the state other

than GRPV
Ease of financing
• Ease of access to loans
• Presence of banks giving debt capital in the state
• Availability of insurers in GRPV segment
Consumer experience
Cost considerations
• Discovered tariff in the market
1
2
7
• Tariff rise for end consumers
Consumer acceptance
• Level of consumer acceptance
Power reliability
• System Average Interruption Duration Index
• System Average Interruption Frequency Index


References Links
1. “IMF sees India as fastest-growing economy in 2018, 2019 ,” The Hindu Business Line, https://www.thehindubusinessline.
com/economy/imf-sees-india-as-fastestgrowing-economy-in-2018-2019/article10046661.ece, accessed 26 February 2018
“India’s economic growth is linked to the fortunes of the energy sector,” Live Mint, http://www.livemint.com/Industry/
mf6g1hQV6OlV6HIW5mQTiN/Indias-economic-growth-is-linked-to-the-fortunes-of-the-ene.html, accessed
26 February 2018
“Prime Minister Modi pitches for solar energy as ultimate solution to India’s energy problem ,” The Times of India, https://
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Prime-Minister-Modi-pitches-for-solar-energy-as-
ultimate-solution-to-Indias-energy-problem/articleshow/48548062.cms, accessed 26 February 2018
“Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Punjab National Bank (PNB) sign $100 million loan to finance Solar Rooftop projects,”
Press Information Bureau, http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=163285, accessed 24 April 2018
India Solar Compass 2017,” Bridge to India, http://www.bridgetoindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BRIDGE-TO-INDIA-
Solar-Compass-Q4-2017-Executive-summary.pdf, accessed 24 April 2018
2. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
3. The Borda solution to the plurality rule paradox is the following scoring rule: given “n” countries, if a country is ranked last, it
receives no points; it receives 1 point if ranked next to last. The scoring process continues like this up to N-1 points, awarded
to the country ranked first. Of course, the Borda winner is the country with the highest total score

SARAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARAL

STATE ROOFTOP SOLAR ATTRACTIVENESS INDEX

1 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

3 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

2. Approach and Methodology 25

2.1. Evolution of SARAL 27

5 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

Final results and

1. Robustness of policy framework 49

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 6

7 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 8

Shakti Sustainable Energy Foundation

The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India

Ernst and Young LLP

9 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

11 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

13 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

• I ► nvestment climate for the rooftop solar sector

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 14

Figure 1: The stakeholders involved in SARAL

The steering committee consisted of experienced

EY, in collaboration with the regional chapters of ASSOCHAM,

15 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

Figure 2: The members of the steering committee

1 Ex. government officials Financers 3

• Dr. Ashvini Kumar • Mr. Pankaj Sindwani

2 Ex. government officials Financers

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 16

Figure 3: The team conducted regional workshops to garner feedback

Solicited their feedback on the

The team solicited the

The industry bodies shared

The relative preference expressed

17 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

Over mail or telephonic discussion

North West Central East South North-East

State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index 18

Table 1: Final SARAL ranking

Ranking State SARAL Score Grades

1 Karnataka 78.8 A++

2 Telangana 72.2 A++

3 Gujarat 67.9 A++

4 Andhra Pradesh 66.1 A++

6 Madhya Pradesh 58.3 A+

10 Tamil Nadu 50.9 A+

16 Chhattisgarh 36.5 B++

17 Goa 31.8 B++

18 Uttarakhand 31.6 B++

20 Uttar Pradesh 26.5 B+

22 Arunachal Pradesh 21.6 B+

23 Himachal Pradesh 20.8 B+

27 West Bengal 19.4 B

31 Jammu & Kashmir 14.4 B

19 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

21 State Rooftop Solar Attractiveness Index

Figure 5: Break-up of India’s 175 GW renewable energy target for 20222

1.1.1. Need for SARAL

R ooftop solar market in India is witnessing substantial

Score adjusted for scoring indicator weight of 33% 100100% 15.06100%

Score adjusted for sub-parameter weight of 25% 100100%33.3% 15.06100%33.3%

Score adjusted for parameter weight of 16% 100100%33.3%16.8% 15.06100%33.3%16.8%