Solar Growth, Consumer Trust

 

From record installations to responsible adoption, Odisha’s rooftop-solar success story now needs a stronger focus on transparency, documentation, vendor accountability and consumer protection, writes Priyabrat Biswal

 

Odisha’s rooftop-solar revolution is moving rapidly from policy ambition to household reality. At the heart of this transformation is Tata Power Central Odisha Distribution Limited (TPCODL), which has emerged as the State’s leading distribution utility in both rooftop-solar installations and installed capacity under the PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana. The numbers are impressive. But they also point to a larger responsibility. As rooftop solar moves into thousands of homes, the success of the programme can no longer be measured only by the number of systems installed or megawatts added. The next and equally important test is whether consumers are sufficiently informed, properly documented and adequately protected throughout the life cycle of their solar investment.

Data available on the PM Surya Ghar portal, as on August 7, 2026, shows that TPCODL has recorded 53,417 rooftop-solar installations with a combined capacity of 136.18 MW. It is ahead of TPNODL, TPSODL and TPWODL on both parameters, according to the available data. At the national level, the same table records 42,29,482 rooftop-solar installations with a total capacity of 15,011.11 MW. For Odisha, these figures underline the pivotal role being played by TPCODL in translating the rooftop-solar mission into actual installations at the consumer level. But every installation represents more than a number on a dashboard. Behind every megawatt is a household that has made a financial decision, entered into an agreement with a vendor, installed electrical equipment on its property and placed its trust in a government-supported programme. That makes consumer confidence a critical part of the solar transition.

TPCODL’s contribution has not been confined to processing applications and facilitating installations. The discom has undertaken extensive consumer-awareness initiatives through digital platforms, print and electronic media, community programmes, consumer camps, village-level engagement and door-to-door outreach. The objective has been important: to take the complexity out of rooftop solar by explaining eligibility, the application process, financial assistance and the practical benefits of the technology to potential beneficiaries. Campaigns such as “Mo Chhata, Mo Sanchaya” and Surya Ghar Gram Sabhas have helped take the message into communities. The Solar Rath campaign has gone a step further, travelling through rural areas of Dhenkanal, Cuttack, Khordha and Puri. The mobile campaign has effectively functioned as a travelling classroom, explaining subsidies and financing options, addressing misconceptions and building confidence among households that may otherwise regard rooftop solar as technically complicated.

Such outreach deserves recognition. But the nature of rooftop solar makes consumer education a continuing requirement, not a one-time exercise. A rooftop-solar system is not simply a product purchased from a shop. It is a combination of technology, government subsidy, electrical infrastructure, grid integration, safety requirements, warranties and long-term maintenance. Consumers therefore, need information not only before they sign up, but also when the system is installed, commissioned, handed over, maintained and, eventually, repaired. The larger the programme becomes, the more important it is that the consumer remains at the centre of this entire process.

The vendor-consumer agreement prescribed for grid-connected rooftop solar contains several important safeguards. Vendors are required to comply with applicable standards and safety guidelines and can face blacklisting and other penal action for violations. They are also responsible for appropriate design, civil, structural and electrical works and for complying with relevant standards. The framework also provides for consumers to receive important technical documentation, including warranty certificates, BIS-related documents, serial numbers, panel and inverter warranty cards, layouts, electrical single-line diagrams and structural drawings. The complete system is to carry a five-year warranty from the date of commissioning, while individual components are also covered by their respective warranties. These provisions are significant. The larger question, however, is not merely whether such safeguards exist on paper. It is whether they are consistently implemented on the ground and whether consumers know how to use them when something goes wrong.

The issue of price transparency deserves particular attention. The agreement provides that the cost of the plant and the payment schedule are to be mutually decided between the consumer and vendor. From a contractual perspective, this may appear straightforward. From a consumer-protection perspective, however, it raises an important question: can an ordinary household, without specialised technical knowledge, negotiate on an equal footing with a solar vendor? A consumer may not have the expertise to compare panel efficiency, inverter specifications, structural design, cable quality, installation practices, after-sales support or the overall value of competing systems. When a consumer is asked to negotiate the price of a technically complex system, transparent reference information becomes particularly important.

The supplied material specifically flags the absence of a standard price reference for recommended products used in rooftop-solar installations. Without indicative benchmarks for standard system sizes, specifications and equipment categories, consumers may find it difficult to determine whether a quotation is fair, competitive and technically appropriate. A transparent benchmark need not necessarily mean a government-mandated uniform price. Even an indicative price range linked to system size, technology, specifications and approved components could substantially improve consumer awareness and reduce information asymmetry. It could also help responsible vendors distinguish themselves from those competing primarily on price.

Another area deserves urgent attention: documentation. It has been observed that, in numerous cases, vendors fail to provide consumers with essential documents, including original agreements, purchase invoices or bills and warranty cards for the materials installed. If such instances are indeed occurring, they should not be treated as a minor administrative lapse. For the consumer, these documents are the evidence of the transaction, the equipment purchased, the warranties available and the obligations undertaken by the parties. A household investing in a rooftop system expected to operate for many years should not have to chase a vendor for documents that ought to have been handed over as part of the commissioning process.

The concern becomes even more serious if a vendor subsequently closes down, winds up operations or becomes unavailable. Who then helps the consumer establish what was purchased, when it was installed, which equipment was used and what warranty remains applicable? Without the original agreement, invoice, equipment details and warranty documents, a consumer could face unnecessary difficulty in pursuing a legitimate claim. This is precisely why documentation should be treated as an integral part of commissioning rather than an optional post-installation formality.

Odisha’s increasingly digital rooftop-solar ecosystem also creates an opportunity to address this challenge. Every commissioned installation could potentially have a consumer-accessible digital record linked to the application or electricity connection. Such a record could contain the system capacity and commissioning date, vendor details, panel and inverter make, model and serial numbers, invoice and payment details, applicable warranties, commissioning documents, technical drawings and system specifications, maintenance and service records, and a clear route for raising or escalating complaints. Such a system would significantly reduce dependence on paper documents and individual vendors. More importantly, it would protect consumers even if a vendor changes its business model, becomes unavailable or ceases operations.

As Odisha works towards its target of three lakh rooftop-solar installations by March 2027, installation speed will inevitably remain a key priority. But the ecosystem must ensure that speed does not come at the expense of quality. Vendor accountability should extend beyond getting a system installed and commissioned. Parameters such as technical compliance, safety, quality of installation, timely documentation, warranty support, complaint resolution and after-sales responsiveness could form part of a broader vendor-performance assessment. A transparent performance framework would benefit everyone. Consumers would have greater confidence, responsible vendors would gain recognition, DISCOMs would have better visibility into recurring problems, and the government would gain a more reliable mechanism for ensuring that public subsidy translates into durable consumer value.

The grievance mechanism also deserves a closer look. The vendor-consumer agreement states that disputes relating to supply, installation, maintenance or payment are to be settled between the two parties or according to law, while MNRE and the distribution utilities are not parties to such disputes. That contractual arrangement may have a clear legal rationale. Yet the consumer experience can be more complicated. A household may not always know whether a problem is a commercial dispute, a technical-compliance issue, a safety concern, a commissioning problem, a metering issue or something connected with implementation of the government-supported programme. For an ordinary consumer, the distinction can be difficult. There is therefore, a strong case for a clearly defined grievance-escalation and assistance mechanism through which consumers can understand where to take a complaint and what documents or evidence are required. The objective need not be to make the DISCOM a party to every vendor-consumer dispute. Rather, it should be to ensure that no consumer is left without a clear direction simply because the problem falls between institutional boundaries.

TPCODL deserves recognition for its performance. Its 53,417 installations and 136.18 MW of installed capacity establish its leading position among Odisha’s discoms based on the available PM Surya Ghar data. Its sustained awareness initiatives have also helped take rooftop solar beyond the urban, digitally connected consumer and into rural communities. That achievement provides a strong foundation for the next phase. But the next chapter of Odisha’s rooftop-solar story should be about more than scale. It should be about trust.

Installation numbers and capacity will remain important indicators of progress. Yet a mature solar ecosystem should also measure consumer awareness, satisfaction, documentation, system quality, warranty support and grievance resolution. The State could therefore, consider broadening its performance assessment to include these consumer-centric indicators alongside installation targets. Such an approach would not diminish the importance of capacity addition or installation numbers; rather, it would provide a more complete picture of whether the programme is delivering lasting value to households.

The responsibility does not rest with one stakeholder alone. The Government can strengthen policy, transparency and consumer safeguards. DISCOMs can deepen awareness, monitor implementation and create clearer channels for assistance and feedback. Vendors can build long-term credibility through quality installation, transparent pricing, proper documentation and dependable after-sales service. Consumers can also play their part by comparing offers, understanding specifications, insisting on documentation and retaining records. The entire ecosystem stands to benefit when good practices become the norm rather than the exception.

Odisha has an opportunity to demonstrate that a large-scale rooftop-solar programme can be not only fast and ambitious, but also transparent, accountable and consumer-centric. TPCODL has helped establish the momentum. The next challenge is to ensure that every household joining the solar journey does so with confidence. Because ultimately, the real measure of a successful rooftop-solar programme is not simply how many roofs carry solar panels. It is whether the families beneath those panels feel informed, protected and confident in the investment they have made.

Odisha has begun building a solar-powered future. The next step is to make that future consumer-powered as well.

 

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this website or its management.)