Conclusion

No state demonstrates consistently strong performance (features in top seven) across all three dimensions, unlike the previous edition of the report. Even strong decarbonisation leaders show clear gaps either in market-enabling conditions or system readiness, highlighting the heterogeneity of states’ electricity transition. As renewable penetration rises, success increasingly depends not only on capacity addition but also on grid readiness, market participation, and demand-side efficiency. The findings suggest that even leading states need to strengthen weaker links to achieve a holistic transition.

Two-dimensional leaders — performing well in two of three dimensions

These states show strong performance in two dimensions, indicating directional progress but incomplete transition readiness. A cluster of states, including Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Assam, are moving in the right direction but must address specific structural gaps to unlock comprehensive clean electricity transition.

• Maharashtra and Rajasthan perform strongly in dimensions 1 and 3. Maharashtra combines sustained renewable energy capacity additions with strong performance under SEEI 2024 and has strengthened its clean electricity transition through the adoption of Green Energy Open Access Rules (2022), green energy tariffs, and solar-hour-aligned ToD tariffs. However, limitations in DISCOM operations, short-term market participation, and distributed solar uptake has resulted in moderate performance under dimension 2. Rajasthan, building on its renewable energy leadership, continued to excel with a well-established renewable energy policy landscape, the lowest green tariff premium in the country, solar-hour-aligned ToD tariff, the adoption of green open access rules, a functional green hydrogen policy and progress in EV ecosystem development. The state also performed well in renewable energy capacity addition over the last five financial years. Nonetheless, constraints related to smart metering, uptake of distributed solar energy, short-term market participation, and power adequacy affected its performance under dimension 2.
• Gujarat and Assam perform strongly in dimensions 2 and 3, supported by robust DISCOM performance. Gujarat recorded a negligible energy shortage of 0.001% in FY2025, while Assam faced shortages of just 9MU (0.07% of demand). Both states advanced in clean electricity transition. While Gujarat did it through green energy open access rules, green tariffs, and solar-hour-aligned ToD tariffs, Assam achieved this by leading in EV adoption (11.1% in FY2025). Gujarat also emerged as a green hydrogen hub. However, performance under dimension 1 remained moderate for both, with Gujarat utilising only 15% of its renewable potential and Assam adding limited renewable capacity over the past five years, constraining the share of renewables in their power procurement mix.
• Punjab and Himachal Pradesh performed well in dimensions 1 and 2. In dimension 1, Himachal Pradesh, dominated by hydropower, led with the highest renewable energy share (~65%) and the lowest power sector emission intensity, while Punjab effectively utilised its renewable energy potential. In dimension 2, Punjab ensured a reliable power supply with zero energy shortage in FY2025 and appreciable DISCOM operations. Himachal Pradesh excelled in short-term market participation with strong power adequacy (0.04% shortage), though limited distributed solar (0.5% of renewable energy capacity) constrained its performance. In dimension 3, both states faced challenges in clean energy and mobility transitions. EV adoption remained modest, with solar-hour-aligned ToD tariff mechanism yet to be adopted. In Punjab, energy storage capacities were absent, and renewable energy policies outdated. Himanchal Pradesh also lacked storage capacity.

One-dimensional leaders — strong in one aspect, held back in others

These states performed well in only one dimension.

• Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala performed strongly in dimension 1, but showed mixed results in dimensions 2 and 3. Karnataka led in dimension 1 with low power sector emission intensity, strong SEEI 2024 performance, and good renewable energy share (~37%). Kerala scored high under this dimension, driven by low emissions, high renewable energy potential utilisation (31%), and strong renewable growth. Tamil Nadu also scored high under this dimension. Dimension 2 scores for Karnataka and Tamil Nadu were constrained by weak distributed solar and smart meter uptake. Under dimension 3, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu struggled with moderate EV adoption, limited green hydrogen uptake and limited storage capacity deployment. Kerala faced challenged due to stalled energy storage capacities and policy implementation.
• Delhi, Odisha and Haryana performed strongly in dimension 2. Delhi remained a high performer under dimension 2, driven by zero power shortage, distributed solar adoption, with 304MW of distributed solar capacity installed as of March 2025, accounting for nearly 97% of its total solar capacity, and strong DISCOM performance. Odisha and Haryana demonstrated good DISCOM performance and minimal power supply shortage. Delhi showed significant scope for improvement in both dimensions 1 and 3, mainly because of its weak performance on parameters such as renewable energy capacity addition, SEEI, state expenditure on renewable energy, and renewable energy in the procurement mix, along with the absence of ToD tariff mechanism and incremental green tariff, and low storage capacity deployment. Similarly, Odisha’s poor performance in power-sector emissions intensity, renewable energy capacity addition, renewable energy share in procurement mix, and state expenditure on renewable energy impacted its score under dimension 1. Progress under dimension 3 was also moderate due to nascent energy storage deployment for all three states. Delhi also showed limited performance in availability of time-of-day tariff mechanism and availability and attractiveness of green tariff.
• Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Andhra Pradesh perform strongly in dimension 3, but moderately in dimensions 1 and 2. Andhra Pradesh led dimension 3 with its integrated clean energy policy, progress in green hydrogen, and 1,440MW of pumped hydro storage capacity, as well as solar-hour-aligned ToD tariff. Despite lacking in storage capacity, Uttar Pradesh also advanced across the same other three parameters, while Madhya Pradesh showed gradual progress in renewable energy deployment, solar-hour-aligned ToD mechanism, and green hydrogen uptake. Telangana demonstrated early-stage progress in energy storage and green hydrogen, with moderate renewable energy deployment and policy incentives. However, dimension 1 performance was moderate for all three states due to limited renewable energy share in power procurement mix and substantial untapped renewable energy potential. The three states also showed limited performance in state expenditure on renewable energy and renewable energy capacity addition. Dimension 2 performance was constrained by moderate DISCOM performance, limited participation in the short-term market, low uptake of distributed solar energy, and insufficient smart metering infrastructure, limiting overall effectiveness in this dimension.

Mixed performers — performing moderately in two or all three dimensions

These states indicate clear effort and intent to accelerate their electricity transition. One-dimensional leaders falling under this category are not included here.

• Chhattisgarh performed moderately across the three dimensions. Under dimension 1, the state added approximately 1.2GW of renewable capacity over the past five financial years, reflecting a robust 21% average annual growth rate. Yet renewables accounted for only 10% of its power procurement in FY2024, and nearly 92% of its renewable potential remained untapped as of March 2025, indicating significant scope for further expansion. Under dimension 2, the state recorded just a 0.07% shortage in FY2025, and moderate DISCOM performance. However, low short-term market participation, limited distributed solar uptake (498MW), and slow smart meter deployment constrained overall readiness. Under dimension 3, its performance was average, with moderate EV adoption (6.6%), the announcement of a green hydrogen facility, and the availability of green tariffs and solar-hour-aligned ToD tariffs. The 2017 renewable energy policy, valid until 2027, presented an opportunity for a strategic update to set clearer targets, strengthen storage deployment, and better integrate emerging market mechanism.
• Uttarakhand’s geographical advantages enabled high hydropower reliance, resulting in a 44% renewable energy share in power procurement in FY2024 and relatively low power sector emissions intensity. However, energy efficiency efforts remained limited and renewable potential (84%) under-leveraged, leading to moderate performance in dimension 1. Under dimension 2, the state maintained strong energy adequacy and an average performing DISCOM, but weak distributed solar (6% of total renewable energy capacity), slow smart metering rollout (4%), and moderate short-term market participation constrained readiness. Under dimension 3, Uttarakhand led in energy storage relative to peak demand, offering green tariffs and ToD tariffs, and having a functional renewable energy policy. However, slower EV uptake and pending ToD alignment with solar hours impacted its performance.
• Bihar exhibited moderate performance under dimensions 2 and 3 but placed in the bottom seven for dimension 1. Under dimension 1, renewable energy utilisation remained subdued, with only 3% of its potential tapped and renewables contributing 18% to power procurement, highlighting significant room for growth. Despite having a State Energy Efficiency Action Plan, Bihar’s energy efficiency efforts still require strengthening. Under dimension 2, Bihar showed strong progress in smart meter deployment (78% under RDSS as of March 2025) and moderate DISCOM performance. However, limited short-term market participation, modest distributed solar uptake (25% of total renewable capacity), and relatively high energy shortages (0.4% or 170MU in FY2025) constrained the state’s overall readiness. Under dimension 3, the state introduced green tariffs for the first time in FY2026, established ToD tariff mechanism, and supported both renewable energy (with a target of 24GW by FY2030) and EV adoption, which stood at 8.2% in FY2025. While energy storage is not yet operational, Bihar has initiated efforts through auctions to integrate storage and is advancing a draft green hydrogen policy, indicating a growing focus on market and technology signals.

States in early stages of transition

These are states that consistently place in the bottom seven across two or more dimensions, reflecting entrenched structural and institutional barriers.

• West Bengal has remained at an early stage of electricity transition due to limited progress across all three dimensions. Under dimension 1, renewable energy plays a marginal role in the state’s power mix, accounting for just 7% of procurement in FY2024, despite having considerable untapped potential (only 20% utilised as of FY2025). In parallel, gains in energy efficiency remain limited. And although the state adopted a State Energy Efficiency Action Plan in March 2023, the SEEI 2024 does not yet reflect meaningful progress. The state demonstrated a similar pattern under dimension 2. While it maintained strong power adequacy with zero shortages in FY2025, its distributed solar uptake was low (80MW or 4% of renewable energy capacity), smart meter deployment minimal (2% as of March 2025), and short-term market participation subdued (15% of procurement in FY2024, with GDAM at just 0.19%). DISCOM performance was modest, further affecting system readiness. Finally, under dimension 3, enabling signals remained muted, with modest EV adoption (4.4%) and policy frameworks lagging, as the state continued to operate under an outdated 2012 renewable policy. Collectively, these factors indicate that while West Bengal has maintained power supply adequacy, more decisive policy, regulatory, market and efficiency actions are needed for the state to progress meaningfully in the electricity transition.
• Telangana’s overall performance across the three dimensions remained constrained due to gaps in implementation and outcomes. Under dimension 1, the state scored low on account of a modest renewable energy share in power procurement (14% in FY2024), renewable energy potential utilisation below 10% as of March 2025, and muted renewable capacity additions. Under dimension 2, Telangana performance among the 21 states was the weakest, driven by limited uptake of distributed solar, and weak DISCOM performance. Under dimension 3, while policy intent was visible in an updated renewable energy policy, green tariff mechanism performance remained moderate due to misalignment of ToD tariffs with solar hours, and low EV adoption.
• Jharkhand’s performance, too, remained subdued across all three dimensions, reflecting structural and legacy challenges. Under dimension 1, the state had significant room to scale renewables, which constituted only 8% of procurement in FY2024 and 2% of potential utilised by FY2025. Enhancing renewable deployment will be important for the state’s energy security and diversification. Its State Energy Efficiency Action Plan released in January 2025 signals intent to improve efficiency. Under dimension 2, performance was weighed down by energy shortages (0.5% or 69MU in FY2025), weak DISCOM performance, and minimal short-term market participation, though the state has a comparatively higher distributed solar share (41% of renewable energy capacity). Under dimension 3, performance remained weak despite a 4GW renewable energy target by FY2027 and green open access rule adoption. Moreover, Jharkhand’s EV uptake is nascent (4.6%) and storage or hydrogen pilots are yet to materialise.

This analysis acknowledges that Jharkhand also faces broader Just Transition challenges that sit outside the scope of electricity transition indicators. For example, the state has a significant share of revenues and employment linked to legacy fossil sectors, making socio-economic transition risks especially salient and requiring careful planning.