India’s renewable-energy transition requires not only the rapid addition of clean-power capacity, but also the identification of suitable sites for new projects. As of March 31, 2026, India had 283.46 GW of installed non-fossil-fuel capacity, while installed solar capacity reached 162.15 GW by June 30, 2026. Against the Government’s target of 500 GW of non-fossil-fuel capacity by 2030, the continued expansion of renewable energy will depend, in part, on addressing practical constraints on project development, including the availability of land.

Land constraints are particularly relevant for ground-mounted solar projects in densely populated states. Floating solar photovoltaic (“FPV”) systems, which involve the installation of PV modules on reservoirs, lakes, canals and other inland water bodies, offer a complementary means of expanding solar capacity without competing directly for land. The National Institute of Solar Energy (“NISE”) under the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (“MNRE”), has estimated India’s FPV potential at approximately 102.18 GWp, with high-potential states including Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Telangana and Gujarat.

On July 31, 2026, the Union Cabinet approved the Pradhan Mantri Surya Sarovar Yojana (“PM-SSY”), a central financial assistance scheme with an outlay of INR 5,070 crore, envisaging 5,000 MW of FPV capacity with co-located energy storage systems (“ESS”) of minimum two-hour duration, i.e., 10,000 MWh, with project sanctions during FY 2026-27 to FY 2030-31.[1]

II. The Current Legal and Regulatory Framework

A. Central Framework: Evolving but Incomplete

FPV is not governed by standalone central legislation. It falls under the broader architecture of the Electricity Act, 2003 (“Electricity Act”), which consolidates the law relating to generation, transmission, distribution, trading, and use of electricity and provides for the Central Electricity Authority (“CEA”), the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (“CERC”), State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (“SERCs”), and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”).⁷ The institutional framework is therefore broadly similar to that applicable to other solar generation projects: generation is generally delicensed under the Electricity Act, while tariff, transmission, open access, grid connectivity and related matters are governed by the applicable central or state regulatory framework.

The absence of a dedicated FPV regulatory framework, however, creates interpretational challenges in context to the regulations that govern FPV projects, and in particular whether regulators and authorities will treat FPV in the same manner as ground-mounted or rooftop solar installations. Unlike a conventional solar project, an FPV project may require not only the right to generate and evacuate electricity, but also a legally enforceable right to occupy and use a defined portion of a reservoir, dam, lake, pond or other water body, together with rights of access to the shore, installation and maintenance of mooring and anchoring infrastructure, and rights for transmission and associated facilities. The relevant authority must clearly demarcate these rights over the water body and formally grant them to the generator. The legal nature, tenure and transferability of those rights will also affect important aspects like project bankability and, therefore, will also be instrumental in deciding the future of FPV in India.

This fragmented regulatory architecture also means that FPV project development may require approvals or consents from multiple authorities, depending on the ownership, purpose and classification of the relevant water body. Therefore, the critical issue which arises for FPV projects is often not whether the project is permissible as a solar generating station, but whether the developer can obtain and retain the underlying site rights and approvals for the duration of the project and align those rights with its financing, power sale and grid arrangements.

The PM-SSY, as set out above, is an important step in formalising the framework, as it involves providing central financial assistance of INR 1 crore per MW after successful commissioning for eligible FPV projects and up to INR 50 lakh per project for feasibility studies including bathymetry, hydrography, and environmental assessments.⁸ However, financial support under the PM-SSY does not, by itself, resolve questions of site allocation, environmental and water-body permissions, grid connectivity, transmission access, contractual risk allocation or the legal character of the developer’s rights over the water surface.

In February 2026, MNRE held stakeholder consultations on a draft Floating Solar PV potential assessment prepared by NISE and IIT Roorkee (“NISE-IIT Report”), which acknowledged that low deployment was primarily attributable to the lack of data on potential sites and a clear framework for project execution.⁹ This gap distinguishes FPV from ground-mounted solar, where a well-settled procurement and regulatory architecture is in place.

B. Central Safety Standards

The CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023 (“CEA Safety Regulations”), notified under section 177(2)(b) read with section 53 of the Electricity Act, include specific provisions for floating solar installations. The CEA Safety Regulations requires PV modules and associated structures of floating solar power plants to comply with certain additional relevant standards, including tests for salt mist corrosion, ammonia corrosion, environmental stress cracking of high-density polyethylene, and tensile properties of plastics.[2] The CEA Safety Regulations therefore recognise that the water-based operating environment creates safety and material-performance considerations that are not addressed solely through the generic solar requirements. Other applicable solar safety requirements under Regulation 121 include surge and over-current protection for combiner boxes, isolation protection, earth-fault protection and insulation monitoring for photovoltaic arrays and inverters, compliance of photovoltaic modules with relevant safety standards, and fire detection and suppression measures. The CEA Safety Regulations should, however, be read contextually, since certain requirements in Regulation 121 are specific to rooftop or ground-mounted installations rather than floating systems.

In our view, the provisions in the CEA Safety Regulations are not adequate to tackle the technical basis due to which FPV projects require differentiated treatment. FPV installations are exposed to continuous movement, water-level fluctuations, humidity, biofouling (i.e. the unwanted accumulation of microorganisms, algae, plants and small animals on submerged surfaces), and hydrodynamic forces, with these conditions contributing to mechanical wear, cable fatigue and insulation-related risks. Experts and stakeholders have, accordingly, identified enhanced electrical protection, specialised grounding and leakage-current protection, as well as safety protocols for water-based maintenance, as important design and operational considerations. Having said that, and as the NISE-IIT Report records, long-term durability data for FPV remain limited and that standards and design practices are still evolving.

For developers, these requirements have implications beyond initial technical compliance. The allocation of responsibility for material specifications, testing, replacement and maintenance should be reflected in EPC and O&M arrangements, while equipment warranties, insurance and performance obligations should account for the more demanding operating conditions of FPV.

C. Procurement Architecture

FPV procurement currently operates within the existing solar competitive bidding framework. The Solar Energy Corporation of India (“SECI”), functions as an intermediary procurer and RE implementing agency, conducting tariff-based competitive bidding, executing power purchase agreements (“PPAs”) with developers, and entering into power sale agreements (“PSAs”) with buying entities, with CERC tariff adoption and SERC approval of the PSAs.

SECI has issued multiple FPV-specific tenders, including for 30 MW of FPV at raw water reservoirs of Damodar Valley Corporation thermal power plants (June 2022), 100 MW AC floating solar PV at Getalsud Dam, Ranchi (March 2023, which was successful and has recently been commissioned), and grid-connected FPV with battery ESS in Lakshadweep on lagoons (March 2025), which is in the process of being finalised. NTPC has likewise developed FPV as an extension of its existing generation infrastructure, with commissioned projects including Ramagundam (100 MW), Kayamkulam (92 MW), Simhadri (25 MW) and other floating installations. NTPC’s current project disclosures indicate that FPV is also being integrated into existing power-station and reservoir infrastructure rather than developed exclusively as standalone solar parks. At the state level, procurement entities such as MAHAPREIT (a Government of Maharashtra undertaking) have issued RfS documents for FPV on a Design-Finance-Build-Own-Operate-Transfer/tariff-based competitive bidding basis, for instance, the 100 MW grid-connected FPV at Tansa and/or Modak Sagar Dam with a ceiling tariff of INR 4.18/kWh and a 25-year PPA term.[3] Rewa Ultra Mega Solar Limited (“RUMSL”), a joint venture of Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam and SECI, is developing a 600 MW FPV park at Omkareshwar Dam with World Bank technical and financial assistance, where SJVN commissioned the first 90 MW phase at a tariff of INR 3.26/unit on a build-own-operate basis.[4]

Further, the tender documents indicate that rights to use the underlying waterbody are secured separately from the power procurement arrangements, through project-specific leases or right-to-use arrangements with the relevant waterbody authority. For instance, the Getalsud project involved a tripartite water lease agreement, while the MAHAPREIT and RUMSL tenders envisage the right to use the relevant reservoir being made available through the procuring entity from the concerned authority.

These examples indicate that FPV procurement is evolving through different project structures, depending on the ownership of the generating asset, the arrangement for use of the waterbody and the intended power-sale structure. These include (i) utility procurement, under which SECI or a state procurer selects an independent solar power developer through tariff-based competitive bidding and procures power under a long-term PPA (with a corresponding PSA where an intermediary procurer is involved); (ii) station-linked development, under which an existing generating company, such as NTPC, competitively procures EPC and O&M services to integrate an FPV facility into its existing generation infrastructure; and (iii) integrated solar-park development, under which an implementing agency such as RUMSL coordinates the wider project and site framework and awards individual capacities to developers on a build-own-operate basis, as demonstrated by SJVN’s 90 MW Omkareshwar project, awarded at INR 3.26/kWh through competitive tariff bidding.

The tender documentation also demonstrates that waterbody rights and associated site risks require express contractual allocation. For instance, the MAHAPREIT tender for Tansa/Modak Sagar requires the selected developer to establish its documented right to use the entire required waterbody area, while placing responsibility for grid connectivity, power evacuation and associated transmission-line and right-of-way costs on the developer. In addition to securing the requisite waterbody rights for the project term, the contractual framework should address the responsibility for environmental and other statutory approvals, access to the waterbody, fluctuations in water levels and operational restrictions, anchoring and mooring requirements, grid connectivity and evacuation delays, and generation and performance shortfalls.

Tariff determination is not uniform across FPV projects. The examples reviewed principally demonstrate tariff-based competitive bidding, under which the tariff is discovered through a competitive process and adopted by the appropriate Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003. However, project-specific tariff determination by the Commission under Section 62 is also possible: in its order dated 30 March 2025, the CERC determined a levelised tariff of INR 2.68/kWh for NTPC’s 92 MW floating solar project at Kayamkulam. Accordingly, while competitive tariff discovery is a prominent procurement model for independently developed FPV projects, the applicable tariff mechanism depends on the project structure and the relevant regulatory framework

III. Water Surface Rights and Jurisdictional Considerations

Unlike ground-mounted solar, where land acquisition or lease is governed by well-established legal instruments, FPV deployment engages a more complex matrix of rights over water surfaces, submerged land, and adjoining shore areas. As the NISE Report suggests, the feasibility of an FPV site depends not only on the availability of water surface, but also on the water body’s existing use, seasonal water-level variation, bathymetry, accessibility and proximity to transmission infrastructure. An FPV project therefore requires more than the right to occupy a portion of the water surface, depending on the site and project design, as the developer may also require rights for access to the water body and banks, installation and maintenance of anchoring and mooring systems, deployment of floating cables and associated equipment, and access to evacuation infrastructure.

Under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, read with the Seventh Schedule, “water” (including water supplies, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments, water storage, and water power) and “land” (including rights in or over land) are State List subjects[5], subject to the Union’s power over regulation of inter-state rivers[6]. This constitutional allocation means that FPV project rights are substantially governed by state law and the specific department or local body controlling the relevant water body.

The legal characterisation of the right granted to an FPV developer, whether a lease, license, concession, or permission has material implications for bankability and security creation. Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (“TPA”), a lease of immovable property transfers a right to enjoy such property for a specified time or in perpetuity[7], and a mortgage is a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property to secure payment of money[8]. Under the Indian Easements Act, 1882, a license is merely a right to do something on the immovable property of the grantor that would otherwise be unlawful and does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property[9], while licenses are generally non-transferable[10]  and may be revocable unless coupled with a transfer of property under Section 60.

The practical consequence is that an FPV project’s water-surface right may not be mortgageable in the manner that land can be if it is structured as a bare license or a non-transferable permission. This distinction is particularly relevant for lenders because project documents may need to secure not only the developer’s right to use the water surface, but also the continuity and transferability of associated access and infrastructure rights for the project term. The enforceability of security interests over such rights depends on the specific state law, the terms of the grant instrument, the property status of the water body, and applicable registration and stamp duty requirements In practice, developers may secure access through leases, concessions, licences or other right-to-use arrangements, supplemented by separate approvals for shore access, transmission and right-of-way. The appropriate instrument must be assessed against the applicable State law and the terms of the grant, particularly with respect to the duration and transferability of the rights and their ability to support lender security. Water bodies may also be subject to environmental and use restrictions. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017, under MoEFCC, provide for notification of wetlands[11], definition of prohibited and regulated activities, and management through State/UT Wetland Authorities comprising representatives of environment, forests, urban development, water resources, fisheries, irrigation, tourism, revenue, and pollution control. In a notified wetland, prohibited activities include conversion for non-wetland use, permanent construction within 50 meters of the mean high flood level, and industrial use. Accordingly, FPV developers should establish at an early stage whether the proposed water body is a notified wetland, whether the proposed installation and associated shore-side works fall within any prohibited or regulated activity, and what additional approvals or restrictions may apply.

IV. International Experience and Way Forward in India

Other jurisdictions have increasingly moved beyond treating floating solar as simply another form of solar generation and have adopted project-specific approaches to the interaction between energy generation and water-body management. Singapore, for instance, integrates FPV deployment within its water-management framework, with site-specific engineering and environmental assessment and ongoing monitoring of water quality, sediment and biodiversity. South Korea has similarly incorporated environmental assessment, monitoring and local stakeholder considerations into the development of FPV on dams and reservoirs. The Netherlands has adopted a more integrated water-management approach, under which FPV projects on State-managed water bodies are assessed alongside the existing functions of those water bodies, including navigation, safety and environmental considerations. These approaches suggest that FPV regulation is most effective where water-body use, environmental safeguards and renewable-energy development are considered together, rather than through separate approval processed.

For India, the priority need not necessarily be a separate statutory regime for FPV. A dedicated central policy or set of guidelines, supported by standardised State-level site-allocation and concession arrangements, could establish a common framework for identifying and allocating suitable water bodies, defining water-surface and associated access rights, undertaking environmental and technical due diligence, and coordinating grid connectivity and transmission planning. It could also prescribe minimum requirements for bathymetric and hydrological studies, environmental monitoring, project safety, decommissioning and restoration, while providing for clear allocation of risks relating to changes in water levels, competing uses of reservoirs, delays in approvals and grid availability. This would complement the PM-SSY and the proposed geospatial planning initiatives set out in the NISE-IIT Report, while reducing the need for project-specific arrangements across different State authorities and providing greater certainty to developers, procurers and lenders. Once a framework incorporating the observations above is in place, it will allow India to leverage its substantial identified FPV potential while ensuring that water-resource, environmental and power-sector considerations are addressed together at the project-development stage.

[1] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau

[2] Regulation 121 (5), CEA (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023.

[3] tender-doc-1768840016.pdf

[4] Press Release Page | Press Information Bureau

[5] Entries 17 and 18, List II, Constitution of India, 1950.

[6] Entry 56, List I, Constitution of India, 1950.

[7] Section 105, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

[8] Section 58, Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

[9] Section 52, Indian Easements Act, 1882.

[10] Section 56, Indian Easements Act, 1882.

[11] The definition of ‘Wetlands’ is as follows: ‘An area of marsh, fen, peatland or water; whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters, but does not include river channels, paddy fields, human-made water bodies/tanks specifically constructed for drinking water purposes and structures specifically constructed for aquaculture, salt production, recreation and irrigation purposes.’