July 2014

CRISIL Insight

Growth Outlook for Indian Solar Sector: FAQs

CRISIL Insight

Analytical Contacts:
Pawan Agrawal
Senior Director CRISIL Ratings
Email: pawan.agrawal@crisil.com
Manish Gupta
Director CRISIL Ratings
Email: manish.gupta@crisil.com
Ramesh Karunakaran
Associate Director CRISIL Ratings
Email: ramesh.karunakaran@crisil.com
Shilpi Keshari
Senior Rating Analyst CRISIL Ratings
Email: shilpi.keshari@crisil.com
Kartik Shetty
Rating Analyst CRISIL Ratings
Email: kartik.shetty@crisil.com

Growth Outlook for Indian Solar Sector: FAQs

CRISIL rates 15 single-asset solar special purpose vehicles (SPVs) installed under the central
governments Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission (JNNSM) Phase 1 and other state level
schemes (please refer table 4 for detailed rating list) with capacities totaling 120.5 megawatts (MW).
CRISIL also has ratings on five solar EPC (engineering, procurement, construction) players 1 and five
solar photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturers 2, and provides solar grading coverage for over 90 PV
and water heating-based system integrators.
Chart 1, below captures the rating category of the CRISIL rated solar SPVs with close to 60% of rated
projects in the investment grade.
Chart 1: Rating distribution of solar SPVs
CRISIL-rated solar projects (size in MW)

The median rating of projects is BBB

9 Projects

90.50
6 Projects

30.00
JNNSM

State^

A Category

BBB Category

BB and below

^Includes one 25 MW under construction solar thermal power project

CRISIL in this article analyses the critical factors that will drive the growth of the solar energy sector.
The entire article has been structured in the form of Q&As. The Q&As analyse the role of government
support, pre-commission and operational risks in the solar power projects, impact of recent antidumping issue, counterparty credit risks, and emerging large scale players in the sector.
1. What has kept solar capacity growing and what will drive future growth?
Solar power in India has witnessed impressive growth in a short span of time from just 35 MW as of
March 2011 to a respectable 2,647 MW as of March 2014 (Chart 2). The steep growth in these three
years has come on the back of a favourable policy environment, particularly the JNNSM scheme, and
Gujarats solar policy.

Enrich Energy Pvt Ltd (rated CRISIL BB+/ Stable/ CRISIL A4+) ,Novus Green Energy Systems Pvt Ltd (rated CRISIL BB/ Stable/ CRISIL A4+), Alectrona energy
Pvt Ltd (rated CRISIL BB-/Stable/ CRISIL A4+ [Placed on 'Notice of Withdrawal']), Refex Energy Ltd (rated CRISIL BB+/ Stable/ CRISIL A4+) and Photon Energy
Systems Limited (Rated CRISIL C/ CRISIL A4)
2
Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (rated CRISIL A/Negative/ CRISIL A1), HHV Solar Technologies Pvt Ltd (rated CRISIL B-/Stable/CRISIL A4), Vega Solar Energy
Private Limited (rated CRISIL B-/Stable/ CRISIL A4), Surana Ventures Ltd (rated CRISIL BB+/Stable/ CRISIL A4+) and Empire Photovoltaic Systems Private
Limited (rated CRISIL D)

CRISIL Insight
JNNSM has opted for the bid-based tariff route in Phase 1 and bid-based viability gap funding in
Phase 2 (batch 1). This is further aided by government support in the form of infrastructure such as
land, accessibility via roads and grid connectivity. Gujarat, for instance, has provided a solar park with
all infrastructure in one place where multiple projects can be commissioned.
Indeed, Gujarat has become an attractive destination for solar power projects thanks to its policy of
attractive long-term preferential tariffs, creditworthiness of its state distribution company (discom) and
high level of solar radiation or insolation.
Around 296 MW of capacity under the Renewable Energy Certificates (REC) mechanism has come up
during 2012-13, mainly in Rajasthan, MP and AP. However, the attractiveness of this route has
decreased due to a failure on the governments part to enforce the Renewable Power Obligations
(RPO) mechanism, which creates demand for REC. Limited pricing visibility (CERC has fixed the
prices for these certificates only till 2017) of the mechanism has further eroded its attractiveness.
CRISIL believes the future of the REC mechanism is uncertain unless the RPO is strictly enforced by
the government. The capacity addition though this route is expected to come down.
Chart 2: Growth in solar capacity in India (in MW)

2,647

Chart 3: Policy wise break-up of 2,208 MW as on

January 31, 2014
5.1

10.0

JNNSM
Gujarat
Karnataka
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
West Bengal
RPO
REC
Private
CPSUs

686.9
1,646

296.0
40.0

941

150.0

5.0
10

860.4

35

Mar 2010 Mar 2011 Mar 2012 Mar 2013 Mar 2014

130.0
25.0

Source: MNRE website

Further, the technology curve for solar power is evolving. In the past two years, capital cost per MW
has fallen from Rs.14 crore per MW to less than Rs. 8 crore per MW, resulting in average solar tariff
rates falling from Rs. 15 per kWh to Rs. 8.0 per kWh.
CRISIL believes that for solar power projects to achieve grid parity, capital cost needs to fall below
Rs. 5 crore per MW. And until grid parity is achieved, government support in terms of preferential tariff
or viability gap funding remains critical for growth in solar power.
Chart 4: Trends in solar projects capital cost
per MW

14
15

15

13

12

13
10

7.9

8
2009-10

2010-11
Solar PV

Source: CERC

10.7

17
Rupees per kWh

Rs crores per MW

17

Chart 5: Solar power yet to achieve grid parity

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

Solar Thermal
Soucre: CRISIL Ratings

5.8

5.7

4.6

4.1

4.1

3.9

3.8

3.6

2. Given the credit risk profile of state discoms, what will drive growth?
For a state to be attractive to solar power developers, the level of solar radiation and credit profile of
the counterparty are crucial. For instance, Gujarat, which has high capacity of 860 MW under its solar
policy, represents a good combination of abundant radiation leading to healthy plant load factors
(PLFs) and a creditworthy counter party in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd (GUVNL). By contrast, in
Rajasthan, of the 667 MW of installed solar capacity, none is under state policy due to
creditworthiness of its state distribution company (discom). (Charts 6, 7).
Chart 6: State discoms credit profile

Source: CRISIL Ratings

Chart 7: Annualised average solar radiation -- or

insolation -- map of India

Source: MNRE website

Most states barring Gujarat have lagged in adding solar capacities. Creditworthiness of state discoms
and delays in implementation have played a key role in investor interest. In the near term, based on
bidding initiated in 2012-13, CRISIL believes close to 500 MW capacity will be added under state solar
policies mainly in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh.
For states with high solar radiation but relatively high risk in terms of creditworthiness, the majority of
the capacity addition will come under the central governments JNNSM scheme. The creditworthiness
of the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI)3 provides comfort to investors. But developers are
finding it difficult to bid for larger projects as JNNSM has a cap on the maximum capacity that can be
awarded, which leads to aggressive bidding
Hence, CRISIL believes the recent introduction of ultra-mega power projects (UMPPs) in the solar
sector will play a crucial role in providing scale and a creditworthy counterparty (SECI). The Ministry of
New and Renewable Energy has rolled out 4 UMPP projects with cumulative capacity of 15,000 MW
in Rajasthan (4000 MW), Gujarat (4000 MW), Ladakh (5000 MW) and Kargil (2000 MW). Groundwork
has already commenced for the Rajasthan project. Under this, SECI will be the sole counterparty
which will then sell the power to discoms. This initiative will help developers to not only bid for larger
projects but also have a creditworthy counterparty.

MNRE has established SECI as the executing agency under Phase 2 (batch 1) of JNNSM. SECI will sign power purchase agreements (PPA) for 25 years
with the project developers.

CRISIL Insight
3. Who are the players bidding for solar projects?
Competitive bidding and a sharp drop in tariffs of late have led to the emergence of serious solar
players with massive growth plans. Groups like Welspun Energy, Acme Group, Moser Baer Solar, Sun
Edison Energy India, Azure Power, Essel Infra, Green Infra and Lanco Solar are aiming at huge
capacities and a portfolio of solar projects in the medium term. They have consistently bid for new
projects across JNNSM and state schemes. These projects have a combined portfolio (operational
and under development) of ~1400 MW, accounting for close to 30% of the domestic capacity. Many
large companies are building their own EPC/O&M arms for competitive advantage, which are run by
professionals with vast experience in the solar industry.
Given the increasing competition and aggressive bidding in JNNSM Phase 2, the ability of the
developers to manage interest rate and forex risk will be crucial to returns from projects. Development
institutions such as the International Finance Corporation, the US Exim Overseas Private Investment
Corporation, and Germanys DEG have provided foreign currency loans of Rs. 20 billion to large
players. The companies are also backed by private equity monies estimated at Rs.~45 billion, of
which more than 60% -- or ~Rs. 28 billion -- has gone to the large groups.
CRISIL believes that as the industry matures, serious players will keep adding capacities and build a
significant portfolio of assets. This will help them look at pooling and securitisation of cash flows from
projects or refinancing through bonds.
4. How will the anti-dumping duty on solar panels impact the industry?
In May 2014, the Union Ministry of Commerce recommended levying anti-dumping duty on solar cells
imported from the US, Malaysia, and China. More than two-thirds of the projects in India currently use
imported solar panels. This will increase the cost of capital, thereby necessitating higher tariffs to
maintain project feasibility. The cost of a solar panel imported from the US will rise 50-60% with an
anti-dumping duty of $0.48 per watt, while those of Chinese panels will double with a duty close to
$0.81 per watt. For a solar power plant based on imported module from the US, capital cost will go up
by about Rs.2 crore per MW, which require more than 26% escalation in tariff if the internal rate of
return (IRR) is to be maintained at 15% as shown in the Chart 8. CRISIL believes that without the antidumping duty to sustain solar power generation from 1,000 MW, annual subsidy support from
government should have to increase by Rs.3.0 billion (assuming grid parity at Rs.5.5 / kWh, IRR at
15% and imports from the US). However, higher subsidy support from government will be offset by the
anti-dumping duty that the government will receive on the imports.
Table 1: Anti-dumping duty on solar panel imports
Country of Import

Chart 8: Impact on tariff due to anti-dumping duty

Anti-dumping duty

7.9

8.3

6.5
USA
China

$0.81 per watt

Malaysia

$0.62 per watt

Taiwan

$0.59 per watt

Source: Ministry of commerce and Industry

4

$0.48 per watt

6.6

7.0

Imported

Domestic

8.4

Imported from USA

with anti-dumping
duty

Capital Cost (Rs. Crs per MW)

Tariff required for IRR at 15% (in Rs/ kwh)
Source: CRISIL Ratings

CRISIL has assumed PLF of 19%, debt to equity ratio of 70:30, debt tenure of 12 years and interest cost of 12.50% for domestic credit and 8% for foreign
funding. The cost of capital is assumed at Rs.65.8 million/MW for a project based on imported modules assuming an exchange rate of Rs.60/USD.

The anti-dumping duty also puts in doubt the viability of 1,600 MW of solar projects being developed
under various schemes. Most of these were bid envisaging the use of equipment imported sans antidumping duty. For instance, under JNNSM Phase 2 (Batch 1), 375 MW of projects under the open
category were bid aggressively with an average viability gap funding of just Rs.10.07 million per MW.
CRISIL believes any increase in cost of capital will threaten the feasibility of these projects as returns
are already constrained (IRR 10-13%) due to aggressive bidding. This also does not augur well for
solar policies because many projects are already dragging due to creditworthiness issues of state
discoms. CRISIL believes higher cost of power will also thwart states from meeting their renewable
power obligations.
Today, solar panels are mostly imported from the US, China, Taiwan and Malaysia as prices there are
lower. In addition, developers get access to cheaper funding. While the US has built capacities based
on superior technology, its Asian rivals enjoy economies of scale. India currently is relatively less
competitive in the solar equipment industry due to the lack of:
a) Technology-led innovation
b) Economies of scale - the current manufacturing base in India is 700 MW cells (concentrated
with 4 major manufacturers) and 1,250 MW modules (fragmented with 80 players) against a
global capacity of more than 100 GW
c) Backward integration No silicon wafer manufacturing capacity (a key raw material for
manufacturing cells and modules)
Also, panel quality varies by manufacturer. CRISIL believes that domestic solar equipment industry
will take time to achieve scale, technological competitiveness, quality and backward integration. In
addition, many of the domestic equipment players lack the creditworthiness to back their performance
warranties to solar power projects. With the imposition of anti-dumping duties on import from the US
and China, CRISIL believes developers may look to other countries such as Japan, Germany,
Singapore, and Korea for sourcing panels. Although, the players in these countries supply panels at a
cost slightly higher than imports from China or US, they maintain the quality standard and have the
creditworthiness to fulfill their warranties. Though the imposition of anti-dumping duty is detrimental to
solar power project developers, in the longer term, it will benefit domestic solar equipment
manufacturers, including CRISIL-rated players like Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd (CRISIL
A/Negative/CRISIL A1).
5. What are the pre-commissioning risks to look out for in a solar project?
Like any power project, construction is a key risk in solar power projects. In CRISILs experience, most
of the solar power projects have witnessed low to moderate pre-commissioning risks. In general,
construction complexity for solar PV projects is significantly lower than for thermal power projects.
There are no moving parts like turbines and fuel conveyers and high pressure parts, which
significantly reduce risk levels. Modularity of construction and ability to start generating power in
phases also reduces pre-commission risks. Because the complexity is lower, even smaller
construction firms can design and execute solar PV plants. However, for large plants, ability to
manage delays and cost overruns remains critical. A comprehensive EPC contract that provides a
fixed price, timeline based commitment helps in managing completion risk. Ease of availability of land,
technology and evacuation infrastructure are also critical for solar power projects. For the CRISILrated portfolio, the technology risk has been low as more than 90% of the projects have opted for the
established PV technology and all the PV projects rated by CRISIL are operational except for a 25
MW concentrated solar power (CSP)5 project by Cargo Solar (Gujarat) Pvt Ltd (rated CRISIL BB/Stable)6 Developers prefer PV over CSP because of the latters complexity of technology.
(Refer to Chart 9 & Table 2).
5

CSP technology captures sunlight through mirrors and lenses, converts that into heat energy, which, in turn, generates electrical energy through a
thermodynamic cycle. This is a more complex system than PV, where solar energy is directly converted to electrical energy through photovoltaic cells.
The 25 MW CSP project under Cargo Solar has been delayed for more than three years now due to land issues and disbursal of loans by the lending
consortium. The main concerns for the lenders are the minimal track record of CSP projects in India, which exposes the project to greater implementation and
stabilisation risks relative to PV technology.

CRISIL Insight
Chart 9: Key pre-commissioning risks observed in the CRISIL-rated portfolio
Selection of EPC & equipment supplier
Experience of the EPC contractor in solar power
projects lowers the risks
Performance guarantee by EPC & output
guarantee by manufacturer give visibility for
future performance of the plant

Technology selection
The correct technology should be chosen based
on the irradiation & climatic conditions
The PV technology with proven track record is
preferred globally, while the solar thermal
technology is still to achive scale globally

Pre-commissioning
risks
Grid connectivity
Evacuation infrastructure is a key determinant
as delay in getting grid connectivity has led to
project delays in the past

Land availability
Selection of land with primary infrastructure in
place (road connectivity and water availability)
is critical
Ease of acquisition of land is critical to meet
project timelines

For the CRISIL rated portfolio, close to two-thirds of the projects were commissioned within the
scheduled execution period, ranging from 8 to 12 months. Delays were only a few -- and mainly due to
land clearance issues or evacuation infrastructure.
While three out of 15 projects were delayed because grid evacuation wasnt tied up on time, two were
delayed because of land availability. Compared with conventional projects, overall delays in solar
projects have been minimal at 2 to 4 months. CRISIL has observed longer delays in road projects due
to right-of-way issues and thermal projects due to fuel availability and linkage issues.
CRISIL believes that as the industry matures, the risks associated with technology, radiation data, and
experience of the EPC contractor will be mitigated to a great extent. However, uncertainties over land
availability and grid connectivity will remain a concern in the medium term and will continue to require
government support. CRISIL believes facilitation by the government will boost investor confidence.
Table 2: Pre-commissioning and operational risks of solar projects compared with other power projects
Risks

Wind

Conventional energy

Project execution risks

Relatively low

Relatively low

Relatively high

Project construction
duration

Short (8-12 months)

Short (4 -6 months)

Longer time lines (36-48

months)

Resource data risk

Moderate to high

Moderate

Not applicable

Data availability

Operational data for last

2-3 years only;
Reasonable accuracy
attained

Data for more than 10

years; Reasonable
accuracy attained

Risk linked to availability

of raw material viz. coal,
gas etc.

Moderately evolving in
nature

Already evolved and

tested

Proven and tested

Low variability &

seasonality in solar
irradiance

High variability &

seasonality

Margin of error

Technology risk

PLF risk

Solar

Depends on
availability and
quality of fossil fuels

6. What challenges do operational projects face?

The viability of a commissioned project depends on its ability to maintain healthy capacity utilisation
factor (CUF). This, in turn, is a function of the technology chosen, quality of module/ equipment
design, radiation levels and maintenance of the plant. In general, unlike wind power, solar radiation is
fairly stable from year to year with a low annual standard deviation (3% - 5%). CRISIL-rated projects
have witnessed CUF in the range of 18-20%7(Chart 10) as close to 80% of them are located in either
Gujarat or Rajasthan, where the radiation levels are relatively high compared with other states.
However, some of the smaller projects under Rooftop PV & Small Solar Power Generation
Programme (RPSSGP) have lower CUF of close to 14-16% (as observed in other RPSSGP projects)
which impacts their debt service coverage ratio (DSCR).
In general, multi-crystalline silicon panels are considered to have relatively less risk with a proven
technology and long track record (30 years). In contrast, thin-film technology is relatively new.
However, according to independent technical reports, thin-film technology is suited for countries like
India as with increase in temperature efficiency loss is lower than in crystalline silicon based PV
panels. In the recent times, cadmium telluride or CdTe-based thin-film has established a good
reputation with many projects in India showing preference for it.
In terms of maintenance risks, solar PV projects have no moving parts, which greatly reduces outage
risks. Modularity also makes maintenance easier. Solar modules are built in arrays, with each array
producing a percentage of the total output. Failure of one array does not affect the output of others.
However, in India, dust accumulation on the front surface of the PV module reduces the solar radiation
intensity. Pollution levels and weather influence the level of dust accumulation. Hence, ability to keep
a clean surface becomes critical to maintain healthy CUFs.
Close to 50% of the CRISIL-rated solar power developers have mitigated technology and operational
risks through long-term performance guarantees from solar module manufactures, along with
operation and maintenance contracts (fixed-price contracts with annual escalation). If panels degrade
much higher than expectations, the manufacturer will ensure the performance by either replacing or
providing additional panels. Hence, the creditworthiness and the structure of the performance contract
becomes critical for overcoming the performance and technology risk. Small equipment suppliers with
moderate track record have the risk of going out of business during the life of the project.
CRISIL believes the efficiency of solar panel will depend on exogenous factors and hence,
projects actual CUF over the medium term will remain a critical rating sensitivity factor.
Additionally, as the sector is evolving, its track record around module degradation and performance
failure of the equipment also remains critical. However, for a well-structured PV project with
established technology, lack of moving parts reduces the operational risks.
Chart 10: CRISIL rated projects maintained healthy CUF in line with average
CUF for JNNSM Phase 1 projects
RPSSGP
19%

22%

20%
16%

17%

20%

18%

19%

17%

19%

19%

20%

21%
17%

Source: MNRE and SLDC websites

7

The average CUF for projects based in Gujarat and Rajasthan had been around 18% and 20%, respectively, over the past year. Solar irradiance in these
states has shown less variability over the years.

CRISIL Insight
7. How has the counterparty credit risk panned out for these solar projects?
The CRISIL-rated solar projects are healthy on this count, driven by creditworthiness of the
counterparty and robust debtor policy. All the projects have signed long-term power purchase
agreements (PPAs) for 25 years with close to 80% of them either with GUVNL or NTPC Vidyut Vyapar
Nigam Ltd (NVVN; rated CRISIL AA+/Stable/CRISIL A1+). These counterparties have a track record
of timely payments, which supports the credit quality of solar projects.
These PPAs have adequate covenants for timely payment and penalties, thus ensuring high
probability of timely realisation of receivables. The track record of payments from GUVNL and NVVN
has been good its mostly done before or on time. The risk is further lowered by the presence of a
payment security mechanism in the case of solar power plants under both JNNSM and the state solar
policy (Table 3). CRISIL believes this security mechanism leads to efficient and structured flow of
funds, which strengthens the liquidity profile.
Table 3: Typical payment security mechanism in solar power projects ensures cash trapping
LC mechanism

PPAs are supported by unconditional, revolving and irrevocable letter of credit (LC) given by
counterparty. Projects have a LC extended by the off-taker valid for 1 year and equivalent to
estimated average monthly bill of the year.

DSRA Account

About two-thirds of the rated projects have their term debt secured by Debt Service Reserve
Account (DSRA) equivalent to at least 3 months of interest and principal payment, ensuring
adequate and timely debt servicing.

TRA/Escrow account

In 60% of the rated projects, the payments are routed through escrow/ TRA account, which
ensures efficient cash-flow structure.

Clauses under PPA

For better receivables management, the PPA provides for pre-payment options to the off-taker in
exchange of discounts (1-5%). Also, in case of any delay, the counterparty will have to pay late
payment surcharge (the SBI base rate + 7% in the case of GUVNL).
Unless the developer flouts the agreement terms regarding maintaining minimum shareholding,
or any other material clauses such as bankruptcy, the off-taker will have to purchase power at
the agreed rate for 25 years.

8. To what extent does the tariff structure impact returns?

All projects rated by CRISIL have signed long-term PPAs, which provide strong revenue visibility.
CRISIL has observed that the tariffs for solar power have been coming down gradually, driven by
lower PV module prices.
Additionally, the competitive intensity in the sector has increased, leading to aggressive bidding by
companies. But they have mitigated the risk of this to an extent by structuring debt such that DSCRs
remains healthy. Most of the CRISIL-rated projects have availed of long-term debt with tenures
ranging from 10 to 13 years. Some projects have also availed of buyers credit in foreign currency,
which tends to be cheaper and helps reduce costs during the construction phase. Around 15% of
CRISIL-rated debt in solar projects is foreign currency debt. In recent times, many solar projects are
looking for refinancing through partial guarantees from financial institutions to reduce the interest
costs.

10

Going forward, with increasing competitive intensity in tariff bidding, the ability to reduce the capital
and interest cost, improve CUF, and elongate debt profile will be the key to the credit risk profile of
projects.

Chart 11: Trend in projects tariff (with COD) and DSCR in CRISIL-rated portfolio
RPSSGP

18

Jan-12

Oct-11

18

Jan-12 Feb-12

16

Tariff in Rs/Unit

16

14

14
12

Feb-12 Feb-12
Dec-11

Mar-12 June-12

10

12

Dec-12

10
Dec-12 Dec-12 Dec-12 Feb-13

8
6

6
4

1.7

1.4
Tariff (Rs/unit)

1.4

1.2

1.2

1.1

1.3

Capital cost (Crs/MW)

Capital cost in Rs crores/MW

20

Source: CRISIL Ratings; Dates represent commercial operations date (COD) of the projects

9. What other credit-related issues were observed in CRISIL-rated projects?

Funding mix, extent of investor interest in solar power projects, and support from promoters are some
of the additional key factors analysed by CRISIL. On the equity front, in some cases, the promoters
arranged funds from private equity players. For instance, Eoxis, a private equity fund specialising in
wind and solar energy projects, has invested Rs.362 million in SunBorne Energy Gujarat One Pvt
Ltd (rated CRISIL BBB/Stable).
To improve bankability, in some cases, the promoters provided corporate guarantees. To manage
costs during construction, some projects received unsecured loans from promoters or took low-cost
foreign currency debts.
Many big players are also looking at a portfolio approach, housing solar projects at various SPVs but
holding them centrally through a holding company backed by private equity investment. A diversified
portfolio of solar assets, spread geographically with varying counterparty credit risks, will enable
developers to support their credit profile.
Table 4 summarises the key parameters for all the CRISIL-rated solar power projects. Projects with
longer debt tenure registering decent CUF at higher tariffs and good counterparty have a healthier
credit profile, while the presence of payment security mechanism such as DSRA and TRA account
provide additional liquidity comfort.

11

Table 4: List of rated solar power projects with key parameters

Palace
solar

Astonfield
Solar

Alex
spectrum

Sunborne
Energy

Waa
solar

Aatash
Power

S.J.Green

Euro
Solar

Lexicon
Vinaya

KVR
construction

Sunkon

Molisati
Vinimay

Cargo
solar#

15

15

10.25

5.125

5.125

10

10

25

Location

Gujarat

Rajasthan

Rajasthan

Gujarat

Gujarat

Gujarat

Gujarat

Gujarat

Rajasthan

Jharkhand

Gujarat

Orissa

Gujarat

Counterparty

GUVNL

NVVN

NVVN

GUVNL

GUVNL

GUVNL

GUVNL

GUVNL

NVVN

JSEB

GUVNL

GRIDCO

GUVNL

COD
(mmm-yy)

Mar-12

Oct-11

Feb-12

Jun-12

Dec-11

Dec-12

Dec-12

Dec-12

Feb-13

Jan-12

Dec-12

Jan-12

25 Year PPA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Capital cost
(Rs. Cr/MW)

11

15

15

14

15.06

10.12

9.76

9.76

10.5

11.5

13.8

15.5

30

Debt to equity

70:30

70:30

65:35

70:30

65:35

83:17^

70:30

70:30

70:30

70:30

70:30

70:30

70:30

Tariff (Rs/unit)

Rs.15 (for 112 years) ;

Rs.5
thereafter

17.91

12.5

Rs.15 (for 1-12

years) ; Rs.5
thereafter

Rs.15 (for
1-12 years)
; Rs.5
thereafter

Rs.11.25
(for 1-12
years) ;
Rs.7.50
thereafter

Rs.9.98 (for 112 years) ; Rs.7

thereafter

Rs.9.98
(for 1-12
years) ;
Rs.7
thereafter

8.69

17.91

12

18.52

Rs.11 (for
1-12
years) ;
Rs.4
thereafter

Operating Margin

Above 90%

Above 90%

Above 90%

Above 90%

Above 90%

Around 90%

Above 90%

Above
90%

Above
90%

Above 90%

Above 90%

Around
90%

Above
90%

DSRA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Escrow/TRA
account

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Forex exposure

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

Hedging for Forex

Un-hedged

Un-hedged

Fully Hedged

Un-hedged

Fully
Hedged

Debt tenure

14

14

12

12 to 13

10.5

12

11

15

12

CRISIL BBB

CRISIL
BBB

CRISIL
BBB-

CRISIL BBB-

CRISIL
BBB-

CRISIL
BBB-

CRISIL B+

CRISIL
BB-

Particulars

Capacity in MW

Credit Rating

CRISIL A

CRISIL A-

CRISIL BBB+

#Cargo Solar is based on solar thermal technology CSP; ^Rs.122 million unsecured debt from promoters treated as debt

CRISIL BB

CRISIL B+

Exp Nov14
Yes
(15 years
PPA)

About CRISIL Limited

CRISIL is a global analytical company providing ratings, research, and risk and policy advisory services. We are
India's leading ratings agency. We are also the foremost provider of high-end research to the world's largest
banks and leading corporations.

About CRISIL Ratings

CRISIL Ratings is India's leading rating agency. We pioneered the concept of credit rating in India in 1987. With
a tradition of independence, analytical rigour and innovation, we have a leadership position. We have rated over
75,000 entities, by far the largest number in India. We are a full-service rating agency. We rate the entire range
of debt instruments: bank loans, certificates of deposit, commercial paper, non-convertible debentures, bank
hybrid capital instruments, asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, perpetual bonds, and partial
guarantees. CRISIL sets the standards in every aspect of the credit rating business. We have instituted several
innovations in India including rating municipal bonds, partially guaranteed instruments and microfinance
institutions. We pioneered a globally unique and affordable rating service for Small and Medium Enterprises
(SMEs).This has significantly expanded the market for ratings and is improving SMEs' access to affordable
finance. We have an active outreach programme with issuers, investors and regulators to maintain a high level
of transparency regarding our rating criteria and to disseminate our analytical insights and knowledge.
CRISIL Privacy Notice
CRISIL respects your privacy. We use your contact information, such as your name, address, and email id, to fulfil your
request and service your account and to provide you with additional information from CRISIL and other parts of McGraw Hill
Financial you may find of interest.
For further information, or to let us know your preferences with respect to receiving marketing materials, please visit
www.crisil.com/privacy. You can view McGraw Hill Financials Customer Privacy Policy at http://www.mhfi.com/privacy.
Last updated: May, 2013

Stay Connected

Twitter

LinkedIn |

YouTube |

Facebook

CRISIL Limited
CRISIL House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai 400076. India
Phone: +91 22 3342 3000 | Fax: +91 22 3342 3001
www.crisil.com