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.
