Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I have approximately 15 years of experience in transmission and grid management, with strong expertise in delivering complex STEM-based projects. My work has primarily focused on 765 kV systems, contributing to the enhancement and stability of India’s energy grid.

I have worked with reputed organizations such as Tata Power, Sterlite, and Hyosung, where I handled key assignments under TBCB projects for the Ministry of Power. Currently, I am associated with NIIF, where I contribute to the development of the power infrastructure sector, supported by government sovereign funds. 

Q2. With the rollout of Green Energy Corridor (GEC) Phase III, is the transmission infrastructure actually keeping pace with the rapid injection of renewable power, or should we anticipate significant curtailment risks?

 As of today, with the government’s clear vision around expansion initiatives such as “One Nation, One Grid,” we are making strong progress toward aligning transmission infrastructure with the rapid growth in renewable energy capacity.

That said, there are some initial challenges. The pace of renewable energy addition has been quite abrupt, leading to short-term mismatches between demand and supply of critical raw materials, as well as execution constraints across the value chain. These factors can create localized bottlenecks and a potential risk of curtailment in certain regions.

However, with coordinated efforts from all stakeholders—developers, transmission companies, policymakers, and financiers—we are confident that these challenges will be addressed. The ongoing investments under programs like the Green Energy Corridor, along with improved planning and faster execution, should ensure that transmission infrastructure keeps pace with renewable energy expansion in the near future

Q3. How has the cost of Right of Way (RoW) settlements and forest clearances shifted as a percentage of total project Capex in 2026? Are the traditional contingency buffers still sufficient?

With the Ministry of Power’s push through the TBCB (Tariff-Based Competitive Bidding) model, increased private sector participation has significantly improved the overall approach to infrastructure development, including Right of Way (RoW) acquisition and forest clearances.

As a result, RoW-related challenges are now better understood and more systematically managed, with broadly standardized compensation frameworks in place. However, despite these improvements, the cost of RoW settlements and forest clearances has shown an upward trend as a percentage of total project Capex in 2026, primarily due to stricter regulatory requirements, increased land value, and heightened environmental scrutiny.

In terms of contingency buffers, traditional provisions are becoming less sufficient in certain cases. While they may still cover routine risks, projects facing tight execution timelines or complex clearances may experience cost escalations beyond initial estimates. Delays during execution—especially in securing RoW and forest approvals—can further impact overall project costs.

Going forward, a more dynamic and risk-adjusted contingency approach, along with early-stage stakeholder engagement and proactive planning, will be critical to maintaining project viability and timelines.

Q4. As states increasingly adopt the Intra-State (InSTS) TBCB model, how does the credit risk and payment security mechanism of state-led projects compare to the Central (ISTS) framework?

With the introduction of the Intra-State (InSTS) TBCB framework, states are taking active steps to align their project structuring with the more established Central (ISTS) model. State Transmission Utilities (STUs) are working toward strengthening credit risk frameworks and establishing more robust payment security mechanisms, often with guidance and support from the Central Transmission Utility (CTU).

One of the key positive developments has been the introduction of payment security measures such as the Letter of Credit (LC) mechanism, which improves payment discipline and provides some comfort to developers and lenders. However, compared to the ISTS framework—which benefits from a more mature and centralized payment security structure—the InSTS model still carries relatively higher perceived credit risk.

Q5. Is the adoption of High-Performance Conductors (HPC) or digital sub-stations providing a measurable reduction in 'Life-Cycle O&M' costs, or is the higher upfront Capex merely a regulatory requirement?

This is a somewhat subjective question, as the answer largely depends on the project’s Capex structure and the developer’s investment strategy.

The adoption of High-Performance Conductors (HPC) and digital substations does have the potential to reduce life-cycle O&M costs through improved efficiency, lower technical losses, reduced maintenance requirements, and enhanced system reliability. However, these benefits are typically realized over the long term.

From a practical standpoint, the decision often depends on the developer’s approach—whether they intend to hold the asset for long-term operation or exit/flip the asset under refinancing or yield-based structures. Long-term owners are more likely to prioritize life-cycle cost optimization and thus justify the higher upfront Capex.

On the other hand, for developers with a shorter investment horizon, the higher initial Capex may be seen more as a compliance or regulatory-driven requirement rather than a value-accretive investment, since the full O&M benefits may not be realized within their holding period.

In summary, while HPC and digital substations can deliver measurable O&M savings, their economic justification is closely linked to asset ownership strategy and project lifecycle considerations.

Q6. What is the current 'Yield Compression' we are seeing in the Secondary Market (InvITs) for commissioned TBCB assets?

The secondary market for commissioned TBCB assets, particularly through InvITs, is currently witnessing notable yield compression driven by strong investor appetite.

With the power transmission sector maturing and offering stable, long-term cash flows, there is increasing interest from global investors, sovereign funds, and pension funds. This has created a favorable refinancing environment and competitive bidding for operational assets.

As a result, yields have compressed compared to earlier years, reflecting lower perceived risk and higher asset valuations. What was once considered a relatively high-yield infrastructure segment is now transitioning toward more stable, bond-like returns.

This trend presents a strong opportunity for developers to monetize operational assets through InvIT platforms or refinancing structures at attractive valuations. At the same time, for investors, it signals confidence in the sector, though with relatively tighter return expectations going forward

Q7. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

How resilient and scalable is your project pipeline and cash flow visibility, considering evolving regulatory frameworks, payment security mechanisms, and execution risks such as RoW and clearances?

This question helps assess multiple key aspects at once—pipeline sustainability, risk management capability, financial discipline, and adaptability to policy changes. It also provides insight into how well the company is positioned to handle sector-specific challenges while continuing to deliver stable, long-term returns.