Opinion: Signing Pledges Or Building Grids? India's COP31 Choice | Prof. Sundeep Nayak

India has refused the COP31 Presidency's 35-by-35 electrification pledge. The refusal is defensible: the pledge counts electrons, not emissions. But refusal without an alternative cedes the argument. India should publish its own sector-wise electrification pathway instead.

A Question Asked In Antalya

On 3 November, India's Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav was asked whether India would join the COP31 Presidency's global electrification pledge. His reply was short. "We are not going to sign any pledge. This is their agenda."

When the 31st Conference of Parties opens at the Antalya EXPO Center tomorrow, that sentence will travel further than any other Indian statement of the fortnight. It will be filed under reluctance — a lazy filing, but India can only prove it lazy by doing what it has not yet done: publishing its own electrification pathway, sector by sector, with dates against which it is willing to be measured.

The case for doing so rests on a fact almost nobody is citing.

Why India's Power Economy Is Entering A New Phase

India met its Paris commitment of 50 per cent non-fossil installed capacity roughly five years early. Non-fossil capacity crossed 300 GW on 31 July 2026 and stood above 304 GW a month later, against 283.46 GW at end-March — the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy's own figures. It is now over 54 per cent of installed capacity. In 2025-26 India added a record 55.29 GW, its largest annual addition ever, and ranks third in the world in installed renewable capacity.

The 500 GW non-fossil target, announced at Glasgow in 2021 among the Panchamrit commitments, runs to 2030 and is roughly 60 per cent complete — not a new goal but a five-year-old one India is on course to meet. What is new is the Nationally Determined Contribution for 2035, approved by the Cabinet in March: a 47 per cent cut in emissions intensity of GDP from 2005 levels, 60 per cent non-fossil capacity, and an additional carbon sink of 3.5 to 4.0 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

Now the fact that should anchor India's position at Antalya. The Central Electricity Authority's National Generation Adequacy Plan projects about 1,121 GW of installed capacity by 2035-36, of which roughly 786 GW — close to 70 per cent — would be non-fossil. India's own power-sector planning is ten percentage points more ambitious than the target it lodged with the UNFCCC.

Most countries pledge more than they plan. India plans more than it pledges — a conservative, deliverable approach to international commitment and diplomatically a wasted asset, because it has never been assembled into one document a negotiator, an investor or a journalist can hold in a hand.

What The Pledge Asks For And What It Leaves Out

The Türkiye Presidency's 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge proposes raising electricity's share of global final energy to 35 per cent by 2035, from near 23 per cent today. It is a Presidency Action Agenda initiative — not a negotiated decision of the Parties, and not binding in treaty terms.

It also has a design gap identified by climate advocates, not only reluctant governments. It specifies no renewable share, no binding enforcement and no verification timeline. It counts electrons, not emissions: a country could reach 35 per cent by commissioning coal plants and meet it in full. ODI Global, the London-based development think tank, has cautioned that the goal must not become a cover for expanding fossil generation.

So India has not declined a decarbonisation commitment. It has declined a metric that does not measure decarbonisation, proposed rather than negotiated, unaccompanied by finance. A defensible position — and at present an undefended one.

There is a technical reason too. An electrification share is an outcome, not a policy — a ratio whose numerator depends on grid build-out and industrial investment over decades and whose denominator depends on industrial structure, freight, cooking fuels and the rate at which several hundred million people grow richer. For a mature economy with flat demand, raising the share is substitution. For India, whose final energy consumption will keep growing for a generation, the share can stall even as electrification proceeds at record speed, because the denominator grows underneath it. India could electrify faster than any country in history and still miss 35 per cent.

The International Energy Agency estimates India could lift electricity's share of final energy from around 19 per cent today to 32 per cent by 2035 on cost-competitive options alone. The faster path is available and economically rational. It depends on investment decisions, not a signature.

What Should Emerge From Antalya And From Delhi

India should make two announcements, both possible in Antalya.

First, a sector-wise national electrification roadmap. Not another target — a roadmap. One published document, owned by the Ministry of Power with the CEA as technical secretariat, establishing the present electrification share of each demand sector and setting 2030 and 2035 trajectories for railways, road transport, industrial process heat, agricultural pumping, cooking, buildings and the fast-growing data centre load — with investment required per sector, the commercially viable separated from what needs concessional capital, and annual reporting against outcomes.

The vehicle exists. The Draft National Electricity Policy 2026, released for consultation in January and now with the Cabinet, already carries demand-side ambition — per capita consumption of 2,000 kWh by 2030 and over 4,000 kWh by 2047, against 1,460 kWh in 2024-25. A sectoral electrification annexe in the final notified policy would turn a diplomatic refusal into a domestic instrument. Note the distinction: that policy is still a draft; the 2035 NDC is already lodged.

Second, bankable power purchase agreements for storage, with tariff discovery that prices firmness rather than rewarding the lowest bid. This is the less visible recommendation and the more important one.

The Constraint Nobody Signs Pledges About

Three hundred gigawatts of non-fossil capacity is not three hundred gigawatts of firm power. The CEA's adequacy plan makes this uncomfortably clear: even with non-fossil capacity near 70 per cent by 2035-36, coal is projected to supply roughly half of actual generation. Capacity is not dispatch. Every increment of electrification — a truck fleet charging overnight, induction cooking at dinner, an arc furnace on night shift — tightens the need for storage. Without it, electrification raises coal burn rather than reducing it: precisely the failure mode critics fear in the 35-by-35 design.

India has moved substantially here. The Union Cabinet approved a second tranche of Viability Gap Funding in May — ₹5,400 crore for 30 GWh of battery storage. Discovered tariffs have fallen around 86 per cent since 2022, by some estimates, and over 10 GW was awarded in 2025. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission has made storage eligible for reserve ancillary services, and its tariff (second amendment) Regulations notified in March bring integrated storage into the tariff framework. A draft grid code amendment would extend this to standalone batteries — a draft, not yet law.

The gap is between award and commissioning. Against roughly 102 GWh tendered in 2025, commissioned capacity at year-end was a small fraction. Analysts flag that much of the allocated two-hour capacity sits in a risky category where discovered tariffs may fall below sustainable project economics — the signature of underbidding in auctions built to reward the lowest number. One recent SECI tender took 0.2 GW against 2 GW offered, even as the CEA revised its storage requirement upward to roughly 74 GW and 411 GWh by 2031-32.

The fix is contractual. Model PPAs with enforceable payment security and creditworthy counterparties. Tenors matched to asset life, not a discom's planning horizon. Tariffs that pay separately for capacity, energy and ancillary services, so an asset earns from what it delivers. Auction design with reserve prices that screen out bids no lender will finance. A tariff discovered at a level that cannot be built is not price discovery; it is a delay mechanism.

Where The Business Sits

Every constraint above is a market and unusually legible: regulation has created the demand and published the deadlines. Storage is the largest near-term opening — cells, engineering and construction, and long-term operations. The Carbon Credit Trading Scheme is a second: administered by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency, it imposes binding emissions intensity targets on obligated entities for 2025-26 and 2026-27, a statutory market with statutory deadlines for auditors and verifiers. Across both sit the software problems, from dispatch optimisation to MRV platforms.

The employment case is strongest of all. A CEEW-NRDC study finds India's 500 GW target and green hydrogen goals could support around 4.4 million full-time-equivalent jobs, rooftop solar the largest contributor at roughly 43 per cent — while women are only about 11 per cent of the surveyed solar and wind workforce, a gap that is also an opportunity.

Where It Is Being Built

Ladakh is the most ambitious site: a hybrid renewable park of about 13 GW across Pang, Debring and Kharnak, with SECI as developer and a target around 2029-30. Evacuation is the harder half — roughly 713 km of transmission is approved, including 480 km of HVDC with 5 GW terminals at Pang. The honest caveat belongs here: developers had not been selected as of a recent parliamentary reply, and local communities have raised concerns about consultation and grazing rights. Gujarat's Khavda park is the volume story, around 9.4 GW operational in April 2026.

The lesson: generation sites are no longer the binding constraint. Transmission, land and consent are. States that move early on evacuation and negotiated community agreements will host the next decade of investment.

Demand, meanwhile, sits with households and institutions. Appliance choice, cooking fuel, vehicle purchase and rooftop adoption determine the electrification share more than any central decision — precisely what Mission LiFE frames as climate action and what its Cell at IIT Goa translates into measurable campus practice. Self-help groups, cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organisations offer institutional routes to rooftop maintenance and agricultural load management at a scale individuals cannot negotiate.

International Lessons, Adapted Not Copied

Japan shows that electrification advances fastest where supply reliability is beyond question; a household will not switch its cooking to electricity it does not trust. South Korea has demonstrated the power of price signals. The European Union has pursued electrification through binding sectoral instruments rather than headline shares, with France, Germany and Italy at markedly different stages — evidence that a bloc-wide number conceals more than it reveals. Three principles transfer: reliability before persuasion, sectoral instruments over aggregate targets, prices that reward flexibility. India's scale rules out replication, but the sectoral approach is what a roadmap would institutionalise.

The Road Ahead

COP31 will produce a list, and coverage will organise around who is on it. India has made its decision, and there is little reason to revisit it: the pledge is non-binding, silent on generation technology, unaccompanied by finance, and criticised by the climate community for the same reasons India objects to it.

What deserves revisiting is the silence that follows. A refusal explained only as "their agenda" cedes the framing. A refusal accompanied by a published sector-wise roadmap and a bankable storage procurement framework makes a different argument entirely — that India declines the pledge because it is already doing the work the pledge describes, and intends to be judged on delivery rather than signature.

The steps follow. The Government of India should publish the sectoral roadmap as an annexe to the final National Electricity Policy, and ask each State to produce a corresponding plan with its discoms. The CEA, CERC and BEE should complete the storage regulatory stack — notify the pending grid code and market amendments, issue model storage PPAs with standard payment security, and publish first-cycle CCTS data so markets can price carbon credibly. Financial institutions should build standard products for storage and industrial retrofits: the link between a published roadmap and a built one.

India has the record to make this argument: fifty per cent non-fossil capacity achieved half a decade early, a record 55 GW added in one year, and national planning that runs ahead of its own international commitment. Few delegations in Antalya can say the same. The choice was never between signing pledges and building grids. It is between building grids quietly and being misread, or building grids and publishing a document the world can check.

About the Author: Prof. Sundeep Nayak is a former member of the Indian Administrative Service who retired in the rank of Secretary to the Government of India. He was Director General of the National Productivity Council and Managing Director of the National Cooperative Development Corporation, and has served as Principal Secretary (Energy) and Managing Director of a State power generation company. He is Professor of Practice and Chair of the Mission LiFE Cell at IIT Goa. Views are personal.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the publisher. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, the publisher is not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of this information.