Bihar greenlights plan for clean energy push
The policy also grants a 100% waiver on electricity duty for 15 years and provides long-term open access for 25 years along with full exemption from transmission and wheeling charges. "With the free ISTS (inter-state transmission system) regime drawing to a close, it is time for the industry to act. We are offering one of the most attractive policy regimes in the country-those who invest in Bihar now will fetch maximum returns and lead India's clean energy revolution from the front," Manoj Kumar Singh, energy secretary of Bihar, said.
The policy aims to promote active stakeholder engagement in the manufacturing and deployment of renewable energy projects, while encouraging the integration of advanced and efficient technologies in both generation and storage. To support these ambitions, the policy introduces a highly competitive suite of incentives designed to attract investors and developers from across the country. As per the policy, state utilities will bear the cost of transmission and distribution infrastructure up to 10 km, with shared responsibility beyond that point.Renewable energy projects will have "must run" status and separate feed-in tariffs tailored to different technologies, along with guarantees like minimum generation compensation, energy banking, and a robust payment security mechanism, a government statement said.
Developers will also benefit from priority access to government land on long-term leases, deemed industry status and eligibility to claim carbon credits under UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) or other national schemes.
A minimum of 5% of the renewable energy budget will be allocated exclusively to research and development initiatives.According to the Central Electricity Authority's Resource Adequacy Plan, Bihar must procure about 23 GW of renewable energy by FY30.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
What the ICJ ruling means for the Kyoto Protocol
While defining the obligations of countries in the global fight against climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a crucial clarification regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its validity in a landmark ruling last week. The ICJ has said the Kyoto Protocol not only continues to remain in force, but is also legally relevant, and that countries remain under a legal obligation to comply with its provisions. The ICJ ruling is the first time that an authoritative assertion has been made on the legal status of the Kyoto Protocol in the post-Paris Agreement period. The common understanding so far has been that the Kyoto Protocol was replaced and superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol had ceased to exist, or at least became non-operational or defunct, once the Paris Agreement came into effect in 2016, or at the most when the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended in 2020. But the Kyoto Protocol was never terminated or abrogated by any process. The ICJ has now clarified that it continues to remain in force and has the status of international law. The Kyoto Protocol, which was finalised in 1997 and came into effect in 2005, was the first legal instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement sought to operationalise the provisions of the UNFCCC through specific climate actions from countries. It assigned specific targets to rich and developed countries to reduce their emissions in particular time frames, called commitment periods. Developing countries did not have any such targets, and were encouraged to take 'nationally appropriate' actions to help the fight against climate change. This was in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), one of the foundational tenets of international climate law. This principle, in effect, says while the whole world has a responsibility to take actions against climate change, the bulk of the responsibility lies with rich and developed countries. That is because these countries accounted for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the last 150 years, which have caused climate change. The Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012, and the second from 2012 to 2020. Developed countries, a group of about 40 mentioned by name in Annex-I of the UNFCCC, had to reduce their GHG emissions by assigned amounts during these periods from baseline values in 1990. These countries also had to provide finance and technology to developing countries to help them tackle climate change, in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the world's largest emitter, both in current terms at that time and historically, did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. Several other countries, such as Canada and Japan, either walked out of the Kyoto Protocol at a later stage, or refused to accept binding targets for the second commitment period. Developed countries argued that climate objectives could not be achieved if large emitters, such as China, did not contribute to the effort. China, classified as a developing country in the UNFCCC, overtook the US as the world's largest emitter of GHGs by the mid-2000s. However, it did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. This argument led to efforts to create another legal climate agreement that would ensure the participation of every country. It took the form of the Paris Agreement. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement did not assign emission reduction targets to any country. Rather, countries themselves had to decide what climate actions they would take. This was called nationally-determined contributions (NDCs). So, while the Kyoto Protocol was top-down, the Paris Agreement took a bottom-up approach. The Paris Agreement did not supersede or terminate the Kyoto Protocol. But a third commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, beyond 2020, was never defined. After the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended, the understanding was that it would exist alongside the Paris Agreement for a few years. However, its legal status after 2020 was not very clear. Since it was not terminated, it continued to exist but was not understood to have any relevance. The ICJ has ruled that the Kyoto Protocol remains in force, and countries party to it still have to fulfil their legal obligations under its provisions. 'The Court considers that the lack of agreement on a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the adoption of the Paris Agreement does not mean that the Kyoto Protocol has been terminated. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, remains part of the applicable law,' the ICJ said. The international court has also ruled that non-compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol would constitute an internationally wrongful act. '[T]he absence of a new commitment period does not deprive the Kyoto Protocol of its legal effect. The Kyoto Protocol remains in force… non-compliance with emission reduction commitments by a State may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' the ICJ said. The ruling has clarified that compliance with the targets of the first commitment period is still open for assessment. Note that not all countries have fulfilled their relatively modest emissions reduction targets in the first commitment period. 'While there is no active commitment period at present, the treaty remains in force and relevant, including as a means for assessing the compliance of parties with their commitments during the first commitment period,' the ICJ said. The ICJ ruling came after it was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries to protect the climate system, and the legal consequences of not fulfilling them. To give its ruling, the court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. Although the ICJ has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce GHG emissions and can be held liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so, the ruling is not binding on countries. That is because it is an advisory opinion. However, the ruling opens up the possibility of increased climate litigation, seeking greater accountability from countries to take more effective climate actions.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
SP Goyal, a Yogi confidant, takes charge as new UP Chief Secretary
Shashi Prakash Goyal, a 1989-batch IAS officer, on Thursday assumed charge as the new Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary, replacing Manoj Kumar Singh who retired from service. Considered close to Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, Goyal was serving as the additional chief secretary to the CM, handling Protocol, Civil Aviation and the Estate departments. He has been working in the Chief Minister's office (CMO) for the past eight years, ever since the BJP, led by Adityanath, formed government in the state in 2017. He was also the additional resident commissioner of Uttar Pradesh. Known for his low-key style of functioning and for planning and coordination skills as well as political acumen, Goyal is likely to continue to hold the post till the 2027 Assembly elections. Being seen as a calculated move, his appointment comes at a time when the state government is increasingly faced with infighting between ministers, MLAs and officials. In 2017, he was on deputation to the Centre as joint secretary, Higher Education Department, in the Union Education Ministry. Soon after his repatriation to the state in May 2017, he was appointed principal secretary to the Chief Minister and continued to look after the Protocol, Civil Aviation and the Estate departments even after his promotion as additional chief secretary to CM in 2020. Officials said during the Covid-19 pandemic, Goyal acted as a crucial link between the Chief Minister and other departments. Interestingly, he was considered a front-runner to the Chief Secretary's post in 2024 when Durga Shankar Mishra's term ended but Manoj Kumar Singh, an IAS officer of the 1988 batch, was given charge instead. In the past, he served as the district magistrate of Mathura, Etawah and Prayagraj and as secretary to the Planning, and Irrigation departments. Goyal, who was also considered powerful during the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government from 2007 to 2012, will also hold the additional charge of Infrastructure and Industrial Development Commissioner, additional chief secretary, Coordination Department, and UPIEDA chief executive officer (CEO). However, the charge of principal secretary, Estate Department and Civil Aviation, has been given to Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Sanjay Prasad. After assuming charge as the Chief Secretary on Thursday, Goyal told mediapersons that he would ensure that full emphasis is laid on the implementation of the 'policies of zero tolerance, zero corruption, industrial development and economic development' in the state. 'On the guidance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, efforts will be made to take Uttar Pradesh on the path of development and make the state a 1-trillion dollar economy. He would ensure that development works are completed in a timely manner and concrete steps are taken to make UP an industrial hub, Goyal said. He also thanked CM Adityanath for 'giving me the opportunity to serve on the top administrative post in the state'.
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Hindustan Times
Bonn to Belém: A turning point in global climate diplomacy
When most people think of international climate summits, they picture the high stakes drama of the annual COP gatherings presidents shaking hands, midnight negotiations, and last-minute breakthroughs. But far from the headlines, in the quiet German city of Bonn, another kind of diplomacy was quietly but powerfully unfolding. Climate crisis (Shutterstock) From June 16-26, 2025, negotiators, activists, scientists and observers gathered for SB 62 the 62nd sessions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Subsidiary Bodies (SBSTA and SBI). Being held amid challenging geopolitical circumstances, SB 62 was viewed as a pivotal opportunity to restore trust, especially on adaptation identified as a top priority. While it lacked the glitz of COP 29 in Baku or the anticipation surrounding COP 30 in Belém, SB 62 served as a bridge for technical dialogue to shape political ambition. Adaptation: The long elusive Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) finally started to take shape. For years, adaptation was the neglected sibling of mitigation hard to define, harder to quantify. But SB 62 began to change that. From an astonishing 9,000 proposed indicators, experts managed to narrow the list to 490, with hopes of finalising 100 key indicators by COP 30. These metrics spanned critical areas: Water security, public health, resilient infrastructure and crucially with the enabling conditions such as finance, technology, and capacity building. Developing countries, especially from the Global South, made a strong push for Means of Implementation (MoI) indicators to ensure that adaptation isn't just measured by impacts, but also by access to funds, to knowledge and to systems that leave no one behind. The result was a hard-earned compromise, but one that finally acknowledges that adaptation is not charity but its climate justice. Meanwhile, the Adaptation Fund came under the microscope, with growing support to align it solely with the Paris Agreement. While decisions were deferred to COP 30, the direction of travel was clear that a reform is coming and with it, a call for predictability and access. Climate finance: Despite its technical label, SB 62 wasn't short on drama especially when it came to climate finance. The much-discussed Baku-to-Belém roadmap, which envisions mobilising $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, was at the centre stage. Yet the optimism was quickly tempered by concerns over the growing reliance on private finance, vague definitions of climate-aligned investments, and the chronic absence of grant based public funding especially for adaptation and loss and damage. Finance disagreements were so intense, they delayed the opening of SB 62. For many developing countries, the message was blunt: without clear obligations and accountability, the climate finance promise risks becoming just another broken one. Amidst the gridlock, India's draft Climate Finance Taxonomy emerged as a quiet breakthrough. Designed to curb greenwashing and guide both public and private investments toward genuine climate solutions, it's a tool many are now watching closely. Transparency: If climate action is to be credible, it must be measurable. SB 62 saw a critical review of the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) under the Paris Agreement. New reporting templates and digital platforms were launched to simplify submissions and ensure consistency. For many Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), however, the challenge is still about resources and capacity. To address this, SB 62 emphasised capacity-building and regional peer exchanges to support reporting. ETF isn't just about numbers, it's the backbone of the Global Stocktake, and a key driver of ambition. As countries prepare their NDCs 3.0, transparent reporting will determine whether the world believes the promises made. Inclusion in action: One of SB 62nd more hopeful notes came from the margins where energy often turns into action. Negotiations on a new Gender Action Plan (GAP) were launched, grounded in a collaborative workshop that brought together governments, youth leaders, and civil society. Though warmly welcomed, some questioned Brazil's omission of gender equity from its COP 30 agenda raising concerns about long-term political will. Meanwhile, youth presence was electric. Through initiatives like the Bonn Climate Camp and the Bed Exchange Programme, young activists turned Bonn into a hub of climate creativity. Their demand was clear: We don't want token seats, we want real influence. Bonn dialogues: Beyond the negotiation halls, the Bonn Dialogues captured the spirit of multilevel climate action. From city mayors to tribal leaders, startups to slum communities, the dialogues illustrated one truth: Top-down policymaking can't solve everything. Climate action must be co-created, not dictated. The sessions reflected a shift from pledges to implementation, from centralised decision-making to distributed leadership. Beyond the negotiation halls, the Bonn Dialogues captured the spirit of multilevel climate action. From city mayors to tribal leaders, startups to slum communities, the dialogues illustrated one truth: Top-down policymaking can't solve everything. Climate action must be co-created, not dictated. The sessions reflected a shift from pledges to implementation, from centralised decision-making to distributed leadership. Process reform: As the days ticked by, many began reflecting on the UNFCCC process itself. With over 50 agenda items and dozens of overlapping events, the machinery showed signs of strain. The proposals ranged from capping delegation sizes to sunsetting outdated negotiation tracks. Some floated the radical idea of majority-based decision making a sharp departure from the consensus model that, while inclusive, often leads to paralysis. In response, Brazil unveiled its Action Agenda for COP 30 a 30-point plan to streamline talks and focus on delivery. It was bold, but also symbolic. As observers noted, 'Efficiency is needed but not at the cost of inclusion.' The road to Belém: SB 62 didn't make headlines, but it quietly clarified the stakes. It was a reminder that the hardest work often happens away from the cameras, and that the path to climate justice is paved with both policy and persistence. The road to COP 30 in Belém is now shaped by urgent questions about finance, accountability, and equity. Whether it's finalising adaptation metrics or reforming climate finance, the world expects more than debate, it demands delivery. In his closing address, Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UNFCCC said, 'We need to go further, faster, and fairer.' This article is authored by Hareesh Chandra Panchagnula, manager, climate change and sustainability practice, IPE Global.
