In conversation with Andrew Worden, CEO, GameChange Solar: From innovation to impact
GameChange Solar has grown into one of the top three solar tracker companies globally. What do you think has been the key to your company's success in the competitive solar market?
Our success stems from a relentless focus on delivering tangible value to our customers. From the outset, we've prioritized understanding the unique challenges faced by developers and EPCs, tailoring our solutions to meet those specific needs. This includes innovations like our
Genius Tracker
™ system, designed for durability and ease of installation, and our focus on simplifying logistics to ensure timely delivery and deployment.
A pivotal element of our strategy has been building a strong local supply chain within India. This has enabled us to deliver faster and offer cost-effective but innovative solutions tailored to the Indian market. By operating closer to where our customers build, we can respond quickly, support their stringent project schedules, and align with India's Make-in-India and energy security goals.
Furthermore, our commitment to continuous innovation is driven by direct feedback from our partners and ensures that our products evolve in line with market demands. By integrating customer insights into our design and operational processes, we've built a reputation for reliability and performance that resonates across diverse markets.
In essence, our growth is a testament to our dedication to customer success, strategic operational decisions like our India supply chain, and an unwavering commitment to innovation that addresses real-world challenges.
India is a key market for GameChange Solar, with over 13 GW of projects. What unique opportunities and challenges have you encountered in India's fast-growing solar sector?
India is one of the most ambitious and complex solar markets in the world. The opportunity is massive but so is the expectation. What we've learned is that success here isn't about offering a product, it's about delivering certainty. That means local supply chains, fast execution, and product offerings that perform across diverse terrains and climates.
At the same time, the market pushes you to keep innovating. Whether it's adapting to policy shifts, managing extreme timelines, or supporting customers through state-level complexity, it's a market that rewards discipline and agility in equal measure.
You've been a visionary in the cleantech space for decades. What inspired you to enter the renewable energy sector?
I've always believed in building companies that serve a larger purpose. When I looked at solar, I saw more than a technology; I saw a pathway to rethink how the world generates power. It was an opportunity to solve a real problem while creating value for customers, communities, and the planet.
What drives me even today is that the work is unfinished. Clean energy isn't a trend, it's a generational shift. And I want GameChange Solar to be an integral part of that transformation.
Your company places a strong emphasis on innovation, such as technologies like PowerBoost™ and SmartStow™. How do these innovations contribute to improving the efficiency and affordability of solar systems?
Innovation, for us, starts with a question:
What do our customers need to build faster, operate longer, and lower their costs over time?
That's the filter we apply to every product decision we make.
Technologies like PowerBoost™ and SmartStow™ were created to solve. PowerBoost™ improves energy yield in real-world conditions where sites aren't always flat. SmartStow™ protects modules in extreme wind events, reducing downtime and O&M risk. These aren't add-ons; they're enablers of performance, reliability, and long-term value.
In our view, innovation is only real when it makes solar simpler, smarter, and more bankable for the people building it.
Innovation and affordability are central to GameChange Solar's mission. How do you balance cutting-edge technological advancements with cost-effectiveness to ensure solar energy adoption at scale, especially in emerging markets like India?
The biggest myth in clean energy is that performance and affordability are in conflict. They're not, if you build with intent. We've always designed with scale in mind, not just in terms of volume, but simplicity.
In a market like India, where margins are tight and timelines unforgiving, what our customers need is a partner who understands their business. So, every design tweak, every supply chain decision, is made to help them deploy faster, manage risk better, and lower the lifetime cost of energy.
With India's target of 500 GW of renewable energy by 2030, how does GameChange Solar plan to support India's ambitious renewable energy goals, and what role will the Indian market play in your global strategy?
India has become one of GameChange Solar's most important markets globally, not just in terms of potential, but also performance. We closed FY25 with over 7 GW in tracker orders and a cumulative capacity of 13 GW. We have built one of the strongest local supply chains in the sector. That allows us to deliver with speed, consistency, and reliability across high-volume projects.
We've built a fantastic team here that not only supports our Indian customers but also contributes to our global operations. Their technical depth, execution experience, and on-ground agility have become an important part of how we deliver worldwide.
For us, India isn't an emerging market; it's a strategic centre of excellence. And the work we do here is shaping how we operate everywhere else.
GameChange is setting up a transformer factory in Maharashtra. How does this local manufacturing and training investment align with your long-term strategy in India?
Through our transformer business,
GameChange BOS
, we've set up a new manufacturing facility in Taloja, Maharashtra. Production at the plant is now underway, and it marks an important milestone in our broader strategy to build durable, local capabilities that serve global needs.
The facility spans 180,000 square feet and has a manufacturing capacity of 5,400
MVA
annually. It's designed to produce around 1,800 medium-voltage transformers each year, most of which will be exported. It's a clear example of Make in India for the world.
This investment is about more than capacity. It's about contributing to local employment, developing technical skills, and creating long-term value through manufacturing excellence. For us, it's a natural extension of how we see India – not just as a growth market, but as a meaningful part of our global operations.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
15 minutes ago
- Time of India
FPIs withdraw Rs 8,749 crore from Indian equity markets in June
NEW DELHI: After investing a staggering amount in May, foreign investors turned net sellers with a withdrawal of Rs 8,749 crore from the Indian equity markets in the first week of this month triggered by renewed US-China trade tensions and rising US bond yields. This momentum follows a net investment of Rs 19,860 crore in May and Rs 4,223 crore in April, data with the depositories showed. Prior to this, foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) had pulled out Rs 3,973 crore in March, Rs 34,574 crore in February, and a substantial Rs 78,027 crore in January. With the latest withdrawal, the total outflow has reached Rs 1.01 lakh crore in 2025 so far. "This bearish sentiment was triggered by renewed US-China trade tensions and rising US bond yields, which steered investors towards safer assets," Himanshu Srivastava of Morningstar Investment, said. Besides, a US investigation into Adani Group's alleged sanction violation on Iran further weighed down investor confidence and dragged down key equity indices, he added. However, the unexpected monetary action from the RBI boosted market sentiments significantly. Apart from equities, FPIs pulled out Rs 6,709 crore from debt general limit and Rs 5,974 crore from debt voluntary retention during June 2-6. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Indian Express
18 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Montek Singh Ahluwalia at Idea Exchange: ‘China challenged the US and what's been unleashed is the weaponisation of tariffs'
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, economist and former Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission of India, on India's way around US tariffs, the need for less protectionism and why trade with China needs careful thought. The session was moderated by Ravi Dutta Mishra, Principal Correspondent, The Indian Express. Ravi Dutta Mishra: In the multiple trade negotiations that are underway, India may be forced to lower tariffs. Will there be an adverse effect on our manufacturing as we open ourselves to Western countries? Are we ready for it? President (Donald) Trump has described India as a tariff king and, on this, he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said our tariffs are too high and they should be reduced in our own interest. This process was started in the 1991 reforms and was continued through successive governments, including the Vajpayee government. The economy did well in this period and our export performance also improved. Unfortunately, the policy was reversed in 2017 and our exports have done poorly since then. Indian manufacturers are uncompetitive due to a variety of reasons such as high tariffs, bureaucratic controls and logistical deficiencies. However, this means they are not competitive at the current exchange rate. Depreciating the currency is one way of making them more competitive. It helps those competing against imports and also helps exporters. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: How do the Trump tariffs impact the world and the US economy? That's a difficult question to answer since we don't know where the tariffs will end. The US has imposed 10 per cent on all imports and 25 per cent on selected items. In addition, it has imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs at different levels for different countries. The reciprocal tariffs have been paused until July 9 pending the outcome of negotiations that are underway with different countries. We don't know how far these tariffs will be modified. However, it is quite clear that the US will end up with protection levels much higher than in recent memory. It will also have different tariffs for the same product for different countries, which is a departure from the most-favoured nation principle. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: Do you think there is any rational basis for what the US is doing? Frankly, no. The US has been concerned about two developments for some time but what they are doing is not the solution for either of them. One long-standing concern, which resonates with the US public is the hollowing out of old industries in the so-called 'rust belt'. This is actually a natural process in which industries that had become uncompetitive have shifted to other countries that are more competitive. Against this so-called 'loss', the US has also gained massively because it became dominant in the financial sector and the tech sector. Both sectors have produced an expansion in high-paying jobs. The logical way to deal with the loss of jobs in the older industries would have been to encourage new industries, where the US is competitive, to expand in the states being hollowed out and to reskill the workforce in these areas. On US tariffs | The US tariff action has created a great deal of uncertainty. This may well be a deliberate tactic to give theM a bargaining advantage by unsettling trading partners but this will affect investment, including FDI The second US concern is the remarkable rise of China. They clearly thought that integrating China into the global system would make China more like other democracies but that didn't happen. China has gained enormously from globalisation but it has also explicitly stated a confrontational objective of challenging the US economically, technologically and also militarily. The Biden administration had adopted a targeted policy of constructing trade restrictions on China, especially in sensitive areas. What has been unleashed now is a much broader weaponisation of tariffs against many more countries. This seems to be driven by the spurious argument that they are running trade surpluses. Most economists don't think one should worry about bilateral trade balances, and especially trade balances in goods while leaving out services. The US/EU position exemplifies the problem. The US is running a large trade deficit against the EU in goods but it has an almost equal sized surplus in services. Taking goods and services together, the US/EU trade is balanced. The problem is the US is not just any country. If the US were a small country, then we could point out its errors and simply refuse to enter into any such negotiations. But the US is the largest economy in the world and the largest importer and therefore, in principle, the largest market. So you cannot ignore it. Therefore, even though their position is not theoretically defensible, most countries are trying to see what they can get out of it through negotiation. Ravi Dutta Mishra: Our unwillingness to open up to China led to us abandoning RCEP. Can we just open up to the West and ignore RCEP? That's a very important point. Asia is where most of the growth will take place in the future and we should certainly not ignore it. As you said, we backed out of signing the RCEP agreement because our producers lobbied that they can't compete if duty-free access is given to Chinese imports. It is true that China is widely regarded as a non-transparent trader which subsidises its exports in many ways. However, if this was the main reason for not signing RCEP, we should apply to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Trade Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). This grouping does not include China but covers other important Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea. We have free trade agreements with these countries but they are old and limited arrangements. We need to enter into deeper arrangements which also align behind the border standards. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: We have seen more than three decades of reforms and liberalisation. Are there certain sectors which still require protection? Whenever an industry is unable to compete with imports, it will demand for protection to save it. If you go into it more deeply, they will tell you they can't compete because they have to cope with poor infrastructure, poor logistics, high cost of power, burdensome procedures, poor access to bank credit, etc. All this is true. But the solution lies in rectifying these problems, not conceding protection. That takes time but that is why lowering of duties in a free trade agreement is always phased over time. We have to realise that while granting protection is a simple solution, it only helps the industry protected, while hurting others, all of whom suffer from the same handicaps. Exports are particularly badly hit by protection because it only raises the domestic cost structure, making exports less competitive. I should point out that our exports have done very poorly in the past five years and this also the period when we started raising import duties. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What do you think of the PLI type schemes which are designed to encourage the domestic industry. Do you see this as tantamount to protection or are they stepping stones for the industry to prepare for global competition? PLIs are a way of protecting the industry by extending a subsidy. It has the advantage of providing support without raising the price of the protected product as would happen if duties were raised. The cost is borne by the budget. The example of East Asia is often cited to support the idea that industries can be encouraged through subsidy in the initial stages, which allows them to become competitive. In the East Asian cases, the success of the industry support effort was ultimately judged on whether they became internationally competitive. If they failed to penetrate export markets as expected, the subsidy was withdrawn. Our PLI schemes do not have any such linkage with export performance. On trade with China | where China has become the only source (of import), There is a case for increasing domestic production. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources It is, perhaps, too early to pronounce judgment on PLIs, but we should conduct a serious independent evaluation of these schemes. This task should not be performed by the ministry running the scheme. It should be entrusted to another body, such as NITI Aayog or the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, for an independent view. Ministries always support whatever schemes they are running or at most suggest some marginal improvements. That's why third party evaluation is needed. P Vaidyanathan Iyer: What should be our trade policy vis-à-vis China? China is the second-largest economy in the world and under normal circumstances we should view it as a potentially important trade partner. However, it is also true that we have serious security concerns about China. We have to address these different types of problems. First, there is the problem of non-transparent subsidisation which may hurt our domestic industry. This is best handled by an efficient and speedy system of imposing countervailing duties to counter unfair trade practices. The second problem relates to situations where we have become unduly dependent upon China, enabling it to hurt our economy by denying us exports that we want. The pharmaceutical industry is an example. We pride ourselves on being the pharmacy of the world because we have genuine strength in formulations and other products. However, we have become excessively dependent on China for supplying active pharmaceutical ingredients. This is not a case for rejecting Chinese imports as such but we should reduce dependence on them by developing our own sources domestically or if there are other supply sources available, we should diversify. There is a case for increasing domestic production, and introducing a PLI, if necessary. There is also a case for diversifying supply linkages to other sources. A similar problem arises in the case of various rare earths and minerals, which are needed for our energy transition and where we don't have domestic reserves. China has already weaponised this monopoly. The solution in such cases clearly lies in building access to these items wherever they are available from other countries and perhaps encouraging our own industry to build production capacity elsewhere. A third problem arises in the case of products, particularly advanced electronic products that can be infested with malware. For example, the use of untrusted products in key systems such as the telephone system, the air traffic control system, the electric grid, the banking and payments system, etc. present the possibility of a cyber attack which could impose serious damage. Cyber attacks are happening even without compromised equipment and we need heightened vigilance in these areas but compromised products increase our vulnerability. In such cases, countries have to resort to some combination of relying on domestic supply or importing only from 'trusted sources'. I would emphasise that these considerations should not lead to extreme positions excluding all Chinese imports. Solar cells are a good example. Solar cells are not like chips in the sense that you cannot interfere with the functioning of a solar cell from the outside. China has built capacity more than double the world's current demand for solar chips, as a result of which the price of solar chips has collapsed globally. Importing these chips will allow us to expand our solar generation capacity rapidly and reduce the cost of solar electricity. Should we benefit from this or insist on domestic production of chips at a higher cost? We need to evolve a carefully tailored policy that allows us to derive the benefits of trade with China, without making us vulnerable to pressure. On indian tariffs | President Trump has described India as a tariff king and he is right. Our tariffs are much higher than most other developing countries. I have consistently said they should be reduced in our own interest Sandeep Singh: While the Trump tariffs have caused a disruption, is there some positive effect for Indian manufacturing? The only possible positive effect we can expect is if the US wants to discourage imports from China-centred supply lines and shift to supply lines based on more trusted partners. If India is treated as a more trusted partner, then it creates an opportunity. Of course, the extent of benefit will depend upon whether we can attract the FDI and technology needed to fit into the altered supply chain. Some shifting out of China has been taking place but the countries that benefited were Vietnam and Malaysia, not India. A good example of what looks like a success is the possibility that India-made iPhones will serve a large part of the US market. I have seen reports of President Trump saying he wants Apple to produce all iPhones for the American market domestically. That amounts to insisting on 'reshoring' rather than 'friend shoring'. We should explain that iPhones produced in India are only assembled in India and almost half the value consists of IP which accrues to Apple. The phone also has thousands of components produced in other countries. The assembly stage is actually a low-tech activity, although it creates a lot of jobs which is important. It also gives us a hold from where we could progressively supply more components. If assembly is performed in the US at US wages, it will substantially increase the cost of the phones. Hopefully, these considerations will be used by Apple to defend its India strategy. Aggam Walia: You mentioned deregulation and now the ball is in the states' court. They have to lead the charge. How do you assess this view? Also, many states, both publicly and privately, have been asking for a greater share of the Centre's taxes. Do you think that is tenable? As far as deregulation is concerned, there has to be both Centre and state agenda. The Central government has said they are setting up a committee to recommend a deregulation package. I hope we see early outlining of the proposed agenda, a discussion of what is proposed and then an early implementation. The scope for deregulation at the state level is also great. It would be a great idea if some CMs took the lead and set up committees that could help identify critical areas where deregulation can be implemented. It would help small and medium enterprises the most, since they are most burdened by complex procedures. Ideally, an institution like NITI Aayog could document what the Centre has actually done on deregulation and put pressure on the states to follow suit. On the devolution of taxes, the 16th Finance Commission, is the Constitutional body responsible for making recommendations and they will look into it. I feel the states definitely need more devolution of taxes and it is better to have larger automatic transfers rather than rely on the Central government schemes where the Centre funds part of the cost but designs the scheme. Frankly, the more advanced states are now much more capable and they need more resources. There is a linked issue here and that is that the states don't delegate downward to local bodies. Unfortunately, this can't be done through the Finance Commission. It has to be done by the state government delegating downward. Very few states are willing to do this.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Bupa weighs foray into private hospitals market in India
British health insurance major Bupa is looking to enter the fast-growing private hospital and healthcare market in India, currently dominated by players like Max Healthcare, Apollo Hospitals, Fortis, Narayana Health, and Medanta, as the company grows its engagement beyond the traditional insurance business (Niva Bupa), global CEO Inaki Ereno told TOI in an interview. Excerpts: How do you assess the Indian health insurance market in India? The Indian health insurance market is the most attractive and best in the world. It's still under-penetrated, and we believe there will be many more people requiring private medical insurance. We need more beds, more hospitals, more clinics, and more insurance here... In terms of our own growth, it's been 35% over the last three years. We're clearly seeing a massive opportunity. In markets like Europe, UK, Australia , Latin America, you have a Bupa Payvider programme where you provide not just insurance and easy claims processing, but also a network of healthcare providers. These include dental and mental health clinics, and hospitals. Any plans to start hospitals and such other services in India? With Payvider, we are not just insurers but also providers. Of the claims that our patients go through, we always want around 25% in a place called Bupa - in a Bupa clinic, in a Bupa hospital, in a Bupa digital place. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo This helps us to learn the cost of things, and also allows us to personalise the service. It is too soon to talk about India. I cannot commit yet on the dates but, yes, you can expect that Bupa will keep investing here... we do have a plan, a commitment to study the situation and be ambitious and come up with something big. We believe that 25% of the activity that we do should be run in a place like Bupa. Inflation in health costs is a concern for customers, which also sees policy costs go up. Your views? When it comes to the cost of claims, there is inflation across the world. This is why developing a private medical insurance market helps everybody. When you have more people into private medical insurance, that helps lower costs of claims. Normally, premiums go up with inflation. So, they will not reduce. Are we expecting a big increase in premiums? The answer is no. We expect premiums to go in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Apart from metros and bigger cities, how do you see the opportunity in Tier 2 and Tier 3 towns and rural India? We are clearly targeting markets beyond the top 50-60 cities. We think there's a massive opportunity to get people into the fold of insurance. India is at a very nascent stage, and awareness is still low with respect to health insurance. India is a growing country, with lots of construction and other infrastructure activities happening. Do you think that dust, pollution, and long traffic snarls in congested cities create health hazards for people? The answer is yes, though no one can make a direct correlation in elements like these. But we are working with the Norman Foster Foundation to understand what is the impact that living in a particular city has on your health, including in Delhi. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
