On September 30, the government announced the ₹1.86-lakh-crore Green Energy Corridor-III project. The centre will provide ₹55,000 crore, while states must raise the rest. This pan-India plan focuses on intra-state transmission and battery storage. States will compete for central aid, which Pralhad Joshi called "the biggest support given to renewable energy."
On September 30, the government announced the ₹1.86-lakh-crore Green Energy Corridor-III project, chipping in with ₹55,000 crore and leaving the rest to be brought in or raised by State governments.
GEC-III differs from the previous iterations in scope and geographical coverage. The first two were meant to evacuate 24 GW and 20 GW, respectively, at an outlay of ₹10,142 crore and ₹12,031 crore, whereas GEC-III has a much bigger outlay and is for 135 GW.
However, there are two other fundamental differences. First, GEC-III is essentially meant for strengthening intra-State transmission; the previous two were for inter-State -- eight and seven renewable energy-rich states, respectively. GEC-III is pan-India.
Secondly, GEC-III -- in a first for any green corridor scheme -- brings in battery storage in a big way. The central government proposes to give ₹6,000 crore as incentive for battery storage. New and Renewable Energy Minister Pralhad Joshi said during a press conference at the Windergy 2026 event in Chennai recently that this was "the biggest support which has been given to the renewable energy sector in the entire world", adding that he was saying this with a lot of responsibility.
GEC-III is part of efforts to strengthen the grid to handle steadily increasing amounts of variable renewable energy. The most striking feature of this scheme is that it puts the ball in the states' court.
Competing for aid
States will get central assistance on a "challenge mode", which means they would have to compete for it. Besides, the implementation is left to the states.
SR Narasimhan, former CMD of Grid Controller of India Ltd, observed that the central grant could accelerate implementation in states that already have clear plans to evacuate renewable power.
"The risk is that states without a well-developed intra-State transmission strategy may begin planning projects simply because funding support is available," Narasimhan told businessline.
He pointed to a disconnect between the planning for the inter-State transmission system (ISTS) and the intra-State transmission system (InSTS). Consolidated information on InSTS plans, he said, does not reach the National Committee on Transmission, which approves ISTS investments. This makes coordination difficult, even though evacuation of renewable energy requires them to work in tandem. Narasimhan -- who has long been a campaigner for storage, arguing for battery energy storage system (BESS) as an alternative to transmission (the 'non-wires alternative') -- is happy that BESS is now given importance.
The battery system, he said, could be developed as a transmission asset through tariff-based competitive bidding (TBCB). Even based on conservative assumptions about revenue from electricity-price arbitrage, the tariff could be lower than that of transmission lines. The batteries would also provide 6 GW of support during non-solar hours and contribute to frequency and voltage control.
The proposal highlights a broader question for GEC-III: should transmission planning be confined to building lines, or should it compare wires with storage and other alternatives on a project-by-project basis?
With much of the funding responsibility resting on states, the immediate challenge is to ensure that GEC-III finances transmission infrastructure that is genuinely needed, properly coordinated with inter-State plans and economically justified. The Centre may provide the grant, but the quality of State-level planning -- and the willingness to consider alternatives to conventional transmission -- will determine how much renewable energy the corridor can ultimately accommodate.