Is Odisha’s rooftop solar revolution leaving consumers in the dark?

Is Odisha’s rooftop solar revolution leaving consumers in the dark?

As Odisha accelerates towards its target of three lakh rooftop solar installations by March 2027, the real challenge lies in ensuring consumer protection through quality installations, accountability and reliable post-installation support, writes Priyabrat Biswal

Odisha today stands proudly among India’s top performers under the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana. The state has won national accolades, registered more than 2.49 lakh consumer applications, and completed over 1.04 lakh rooftop solar installations. Nationally, the scheme has crossed 71.64 lakh applications and over 34.10 lakh installations. On paper, the numbers tell a remarkable story of clean energy adoption and citizen participation.

Yet beneath the impressive statistics lies a growing chorus of consumer complaints, unanswered questions and concerns that authorities appear reluctant to confront.

The uncomfortable reality is that while Odisha has emerged as a solar success story, thousands of consumers are still waiting for that success to reach their rooftops. The gap between applications and actual installations remains significant, raising questions about implementation efficiency, accountability and transparency.

A closer look at the figures reveals the challenge. Out of 2,49,110 applications received in Odisha as on June 8, 2026, only 1,04,344 installations have been completed. In simple terms, fewer than half of the applicants have seen their solar systems commissioned. This means that more than 1.44 lakh consumers who expressed interest in the scheme are still awaiting installations.

Even among Odisha's four distribution companies, performance varies sharply. TP Western Odisha Distribution Limited (TPWODL) has emerged as the best performer with an application-to-installation conversion rate of slightly above 50 per cent. TP North Odisha Distribution Limited (TPNODL) follows at 44.97 per cent, while TP Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL) stands at 41.34 per cent. TP Southern Odisha Distribution Limited (TPSODL) trails considerably at 27.27 per cent.

These disparities raise a fundamental question: if consumer demand exists across the state, why are installations progressing so unevenly? Is the problem a shortage of vendors? Is it inadequate material availability? Or does it reflect administrative inefficiencies and poor monitoring by implementing agencies?

The district-wise data paints an equally troubling picture. While Khordha has recorded 10,557 installations, Kandhamal has managed only 420. Malkangiri has achieved 497 installations and Deogarh 540. The difference between Odisha's best-performing and worst-performing districts is staggering.

Such disparities suggest that the benefits of the solar revolution are not reaching all sections of society equally. Urban and economically developed districts continue to dominate adoption, while tribal and geographically remote regions remain largely excluded from the programme's gains.

However, the concerns extend far beyond mere numbers.

As installation volumes have increased, so too have allegations regarding workmanship and quality. Several consumers have reported delays, incomplete civil works, poor wiring practices and inadequate post-installation support. Industry observers argue that the race to achieve ambitious targets may be overshadowing the equally important objective of ensuring quality.

One of the most worrying issues relates to accountability. Consumers often find themselves trapped between vendors, distribution companies and government agencies whenever problems arise. Once subsidy payments are processed, many consumers claim they struggle to obtain corrective support for defects or incomplete work.

A key question remains unanswered: who is ultimately responsible when an installation fails to meet acceptable standards?

The concern is particularly important because rooftop solar systems are expected to function safely and efficiently for 20 to 25 years. Poor installation practices can create serious long-term risks, including electrical faults, equipment failure, structural damage and even fire hazards.

An alarming example emerged during this investigation when an aggrieved consumer described an installation that allegedly took more than a month to become operational despite assurances that it would be completed within two days. According to the consumer, portions of the promised civil work remained unfinished and repeated requests for rectification produced little response.

Even more concerning was the allegation that the vendor laid the direct current (DC) cable carrying electricity from the solar panels to the inverter directly across the rooftop floor. Electrical experts warn that DC current can be particularly dangerous because it does not naturally pass through zero voltage like alternating current (AC), making faults potentially more hazardous if not installed according to prescribed safety standards.

The consumer also raised a more fundamental concern regarding the role of the inspecting authorities. According to him, if critical safety norms and installation standards were visibly violated, how did the concerned engineer certify the system for commissioning? The consumer questioned whether a proper site inspection was actually conducted before approval was granted. Industry experts note that commissioning certification is intended to serve as an important quality-control checkpoint, ensuring that installations comply with prescribed technical and safety standards. If deficiencies such as exposed or improperly laid DC cables, incomplete civil works, or other safety lapses were present at the time of inspection, it raises uncomfortable questions about the rigor of the verification process. The episode has renewed calls for greater accountability and transparency in inspections, with consumers demanding to know whether certification procedures are being followed in both letter and spirit.

The consumer further alleged that complaints submitted to authorities failed to trigger any meaningful intervention.

While a single case cannot be considered representative of an entire programme, it nevertheless highlights weaknesses in grievance redressal systems that are expected to protect consumers.

Another issue that has quietly surfaced concerns the age of equipment being supplied. Reports indicate that some vendors are installing solar inverters manufactured as far back as February 2020.

Vendors argue that warehouse storage does not affect inverter performance. However, several technical experts disagree. They point out that electronic components such as electrolytic capacitors naturally degrade over time, even when equipment remains unused. As a result, consumers are justified in questioning whether a six-year-old inverter can reasonably be expected to deliver the same reliability and lifespan as a newly manufactured unit.

Surprisingly, there appears to be little publicly available guidance regarding permissible inventory age, quality certification protocols or mandatory disclosure requirements for such equipment.

The lack of transparency becomes even more troubling when viewed alongside the silence of key stakeholders.

On May 22, 2026, a detailed set of questions was sent to Tata Power's Corporate Communication Department seeking clarification on installation standards, quality assurance mechanisms, pricing regulations, inspection procedures, warranty responsibilities and billing methodologies under the rooftop solar programme.

The queries specifically sought answers on whether installation quality is independently verified, how vendor compliance is monitored, who bears responsibility in cases of defective workmanship, and how consumers can enforce the much-publicized 25-year solar panel warranty.

Additional questions addressed electricity billing practices, including how surplus power exported to the grid is adjusted and whether promotional claims regarding "zero electricity bills" adequately disclose fixed charges and statutory levies that consumers may still be required to pay.

No response was received. A reminder sent on May 26 also went unanswered.

Such silence is difficult to justify in a programme involving lakhs of consumers and substantial public expenditure. Transparency is not merely a public relations exercise; it is essential for sustaining public trust.

Confusion also persists regarding state-level incentives. While awareness of Central Government subsidies has improved considerably, many consumers remain uncertain about Odisha Government support mechanisms, eligibility conditions, documentation requirements and subsidy timelines. The absence of clear communication continues to create barriers, particularly for lower-income households that stand to benefit most from reduced electricity costs.

Odisha undoubtedly deserves recognition for its impressive achievements under PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana. The state has demonstrated that rooftop solar can scale rapidly when supported by policy, consumer awareness and administrative commitment.

But success cannot be measured solely by installation counts and award trophies.

The real measure of success lies in whether consumers receive safe, reliable and high-quality systems; whether complaints are addressed promptly; whether vendors are held accountable; and whether authorities respond transparently to legitimate public concerns.

As Odisha races towards its ambitious target of three lakh rooftop solar installations by March 2027, the challenge is no longer simply about expanding numbers. It is about ensuring that consumers are not misled by promises, abandoned after installation, or left struggling for answers when problems arise.

The state's solar revolution has undoubtedly illuminated thousands of homes. The question now is whether policymakers, utilities and vendors are willing to shine the same light on the concerns consumers continue to raise. Until then, Odisha's solar success story risks being remembered not only for the power it generated, but also for the questions it failed to answer.

P.S.: As Tata Power did not respond to my queries despite repeated requests, I proceeded with the story based on the information, experience, and feedback available to me. However, they are welcome to share their perspective, and I will gladly incorporate their response and correct or remove any information they can substantiate as inaccurate.