Yes. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us on Juniper Green Energy's earnings conference call for the first quarter ended 30th June 2026. Today, we have with us Mr.

Ankush Malik, Whole-Time Director and Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Parag Agrawal, Whole-Time Director and Chief Financial Officer; and we have Mr.

Bajrang Lal Bhura, General Manager, Investor Relations. We will begin the call with the opening remarks by Mr.

Ankush Malik on the business operations, key initiatives, and broad outlook, followed by the discussion on the financial performance by Mr. Parag Agrawal, after which the management will open the forum for the Q&A session.

Before we get started, I would like to point out that some statements made on today's concall may be forward-looking in nature and must be viewed in conjunction with the risks and the uncertainties that we face. A detailed statement and explanation of these risks is included in the earnings presentation, which has been shared earlier with you all.

The company does not undertake to update these forward-looking statements publicly. I would like to invite Mr.

Ankush Malik to make his opening remarks. Over to you, sir.

Thanks, Kareena. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our Q1 FY27 earnings call.

As this is our first as a listed company. On behalf of the team, I would want to start by thanking our shareholders and new investors for the trust you have placed in us.

Our IPO, through which we raised 1,800 crores, was a significant milestone, and we are grateful for the confidence that you have shown in our long-term strategy. Before I turn to our company's performance, I'll just touch upon the broader sector.

Power demand across the sector has remained strong, especially aided by the El Niño effect this year. It has translated into sustained peak demand pressure on the grid, and renewable capacity, particularly firm and dispatchable formats like the one we specialize in, continues to play an increasingly central role in meeting this gap.

India's installed renewable power generation capacity now stands at close to 290 GW, reflecting the continued pace of capacity addition across the industry, and the broader policy and regulatory environment remains constructive for developers like us. Against that backdrop, we believe Juniper is well-positioned to keep on capturing an outsized share of the demand growth, given the scale and technology mix of our portfolio.

Coming to our performance, I would want to highlight that this has been a milestone quarter for us, the first set of results we are presenting to you as a listed company. We have delivered our highest-ever quarterly revenue and EBITDA and the highest-ever renewable capacity that we have commissioned in a single quarter.

On the operating side, our fleet-wide CUF for Q1 FY27 came in at 30.2%, up from 28.2% in the same quarter last year. Generation has grown by 72% to 944 million units.

Within that, our wind portfolio, with a capacity of 190 MW, delivered a weighted average CUF of 49.9%. Plant availability stood at 98.8% and grid availability at 99.6%.

On execution, we commissioned 601 MW peak in the quarter alone, 458 MW peak of solar and 143 MW of wind, our highest-ever quarterly commissioning. There is an additional 400 MWh of battery that we commissioned.

Taking the broader window from April to date, we have now commissioned more than 760 MW of renewable capacity and roughly 400 MWh of BESS across eight sites. I want to specifically mention that during this quarter, we commissioned India's first FDRE project under the SJVN FDRE tender, a genuine first for the country and a proof point for the model we have built our growth around.

On the generation side, we are now further targeting another 250 to 300 MW of capacity this quarter and overall 2 GW for the full year. We remain firmly on track to deliver against this guidance.

Connectivity, land, and financing for this pipeline are largely tied up, and execution is progressing well across sites. We'll continue to keep you updated on our progress each quarter as these projects move towards commissioning.

On the BESS side, we have commissioned approximately, as we mentioned, 400 MW in this quarter. However, we have placed additional orders for another 4 GWh of capacity and remain on track for a target of approximately 4.5 GWh of installed capacity by June 27 and 10 GWh by March 28.

Our BESS assets continue to perform well, with a round-trip efficiency of approximately 91% and a state of health of around 99.6%, reflecting the quality BESS operations capability. Since the end of the quarter, we have also added meaningfully to our pipeline.

We won two new tenders, the SECI firm and dispatch renewable energy round-the-clock tender for a planned 870 MW and 2,200 MWh of BESS against a 230 MW contracted capacity at a tariff of 5.26. We have already received the letter of award for this capacity.

The thermal mimic construct against which this tender has been designed is actually designed to replicate a thermal plant's round-the-clock output profile through solar, wind, and storage working in tandem at a tariff meaningfully lower, below the thermal power cost. We also won a 50 MW wind project from GUVNL at INR 3.51 per unit.

I'm also happy to share that we have signed a 50 MW PPA with SJVN under our FDRE portfolio at a tariff of 4.25. Put together, as on date, our total portfolio now stands at close to 11,200 MW of capacity plus nearly 9 GWh of BESS, with FDRE and wind-solar hybrid projects making up 84% of our portfolio and a blended weighted average tariff of INR 3.7.

Out of this portfolio, our operational plus PPA-signed capacity stands more than 6.2 GW. On the ground, we continue to build the resource base to execute at scale.

We have surplus connectivity of more than 4.5 GW over and above our entire pipeline and now have further connectivity available for insulation of more than 20 GWh of BESS for future bids, over 14,000 acres of land bank for our under-construction and awarded pipeline, and more than 200 identified wind locations for wind turbine installation. Our in-house EPC team is running end-to-end parallel execution across multiple sites and states at both STU and CTU levels, which continues to be one of our core differentiators.

Finally, on the portfolio quality, 98% of our contracted capacity is with offtakers rated A and above, and 98% of our portfolio is secured through long-term PPAs, typically running for 25 years. The combination of credit quality and contract tenure is really the foundation on which our numbers sit.

Further, I'm pleased to report our days receivable outstanding stood at a tight 19 days as on June 30, among the lowest in the sector, a reflection of the strength of our offtakers. With that, let me hand it over to Parag to take you through the financials in detail.

Yeah. Thank you, Ankush, and good morning, everyone.

As Ankush mentioned, this was a record quarter financially for us. Total income for Q1 FY27 grew to INR 324 crore, which is 79% year-on-year increase from the last year number of 181 crore.

Our EBITDA also grew 86% year-on-year to 294 crore rupees versus 159 crore last year. This takes to our EBITDA margin to 91%, an improvement of roughly 300 basis points year-on-year.

Looking at operating performance specifically, operating income was 291 crore, up 81% year-on-year, and operating EBITDA was INR 261 crore, up 89% year-on-year, with the operating EBITDA margin of 90%, which is 400% basis increase year-on-year. Profit after tax came at INR 33 crore, up 54% year-on-year.

Cash PAT, which is PAT plus depreciation, was INR 108 crore, up 50% year-on-year. Our days receivable outstanding stood at 19 days as on June 30th, 2026.

Our total net debt outstanding as on 30th June is 11,217 crore, out of which net debt for the operating projects is 7,183 crore. During this period, we have completed the refinancing of more than 1,700 crore projects for the three projects at a weighted average interest rate of less than 8%.

With that, our now weighted average cost of debt for the operational portfolio is around 8.5%. Our net worth as on 30th June was 3,463 crore.

With that, our net debt to equity is 3.24x as on 30th June. That, of course, was before the IPO.

We have raised 1,800 crore primary through the IPO, with that our now net worth has increased to 5,200 crore, which has meaningfully strengthened our balance sheet. To summarize, a record quarter on revenue, EBITDA, and margin; a portfolio that grown to over 11 GW as on date, with 84% of it is in FDRE and hybrid format; a strengthened balance sheet post-IPO; and a good offtake credit profile give a lot of confidence to us.

With that, we will now be happy to take your questions.

Yeah. Thank you so much, and congratulations on your first quarter, indeed a good start.

My first question is to speak to your plan for 2,000 MW of capacity addition for FY27. First quarter definitely is promising.

Do you see any risk on account of delays in transmission coming in which can hurt your plan for 2,000 MW?

Puneet, we have already now commissioned more than 760 MW, right? There is the balance 300 that we're looking at in this quarter, that is primarily on STUs, right, projects which are almost completed.

There is no grid issue there. The balance 1 GW, again, the capacity that we have taken, the substations are largely there, right?

They are on CTU, but majority of the capacity is on a substation which is already operational. There is another substation where there is around 300 MW of capacity.

That substation is again operational. The overall system that is under completion, but should get done by December, right?

Mostly, we don't see any major risk on this 2 GW because of a slippage on the grid, right? I think that should not be a major issue.

Understood. Secondly, as a strategy, while substation may be ready, the whole grid may not be ready.

Would you be open to setting it up under the T-GNA route, or would you like to wait for a full GNA?

No. Puneet, see, I think everyone understand how this is working, right?

See, you understand most of our projects are FDRE, right? Now essentially what we are doing is our evacuation infrastructure is from our side, right, is largely built for almost all our projects, right, which are there.

We keep on doing work on ground on the renewable capacity where we work on the civil, we get the boundary wall done, we do the piling, right? What we leave aside is the structure and the module part, right, which is a significant cost, right?

Say there is a substation, I think what we're then doing is we'll get the batteries in. As we mentioned, we should be at around 4.5, 4.5 GWh by June, right?

What we can do is basically, if there is a delay, right, on the transmission system further, right, the batteries will come in, right, and they are right now at a sweet sweet spot, right, in terms of the tariffs that are available, right, and the arbitrage that is available. Run it probably for a while on merchant, and then get the renewable capacity in.

That's how we are looking at. Now so in terms of T-GNA, what we'll do, if we have to commission something on T-GNA, it will largely be batteries.

Or to a certain extent, there is another strategy which we look at where we only commission renewable to the extent that it can be absorbed in the battery, right? Given the fact that the government has now given a clear letter where they said we can sell it on merchant, right, I think mostly we'll try to follow where we'll run the merchant capacity, and then as and when the GNA comes in, we'll be ready to put up the renewable capacity.

We'll get the infrastructure and all the other things ready, right? It will then largely be just the structure and the module that gets installed.

Understood. That's very clear.

Secondly, also, can you define what is the capex plan? You might spend more than what is needed for 2,000, if you can quantify that plan.

As on 30th June, our total capex is around 16,000 crore. If we will say by the March '27, this amount will increase to around 22,000 crore, which includes the capacity of around 3,900, which is getting commissioned by March '27, and CWIP for the capacity which will be coming in the subsequent quarters.

Understood. Lastly, if you can also talk about your experience of any curtailment during the quarter and how much it would have impacted your revenue?

Right. Puneet, the curtailment is largely restricted to that T-GNA capacity, right?

We have a small capacity which is running on T-GNA. This is in Bikaner, is a 50 MW merchant plant.

I think the benefit again, what we've been able to do, we had a 100 MWh battery there, right? We've largely been able to control that.

What we are then doing fully to eliminate any of those issues is we are basically now doubling up on that capacity. This 100 MWh will double to 200 in a month's time, the batteries are already getting installed, they are at site.

Then there won't be any curtailment on this capacity. There is some capacity of the FDRE that is commissioned which is on T-GNA, there again we already have 400 MWh of battery, right, and there is another further addition that will probably get completed by October.

I think what we have tried to do on curtailment, which is largely restricted to this T-GNA, right, because on the GNA side there isn't any curtailment, right? Is to manage it.

One is to let the things be, but we have been proactive and the benefit we have is because we can put up these batteries for longer term for future, right? We have proactively then moved faster to get these batteries in.

Of course, the other benefit has been that because of how the tariffs have been in the night time, right, we have been then able to benefit out of that as well. That's the combination that we have followed.

Understood. Basically, the 27.9% PLF that you experienced for 1Q was unimpacted by any curtailment.

That's a steady number we should assume?

Okay. It's around 2%, right?

So 2% to 2.5% is the curtailment that is there. That is on this 50 MW capacity that we mentioned, right, which is in Bikaner.

Most of it is flowing either through the grid directly or getting stored in the battery, merchant battery. I think it will get fully eliminated with the battery that will get installed, the 100 MWh that will get installed in the coming month.

Understood. That's helpful.

Thank you so much and all the best.

Hi. Good afternoon, sir.

My first question is, is it possible for you to help us with the run-rate EBITDA for the capacity which got commissioned at the end of March '26 and at the end of June '26? That will be helpful, yeah.

Yeah. I think I'll get the numbers for the March and June.

On the 2,575 MW that is commissioned as on date, right, our run-rate EBITDA is 1,620, right? For the March '26 capacity, this number was 1,050, right?

Understood. Second question is on the on the, of course, the RTC mimic which you have won.

Nice. The and the large untapped capacity, I think is is probably as similar to the similar to the I think more than the capacity which are commissioned where the Sorry, my my bad, let me rephrase.

Our total our total our total PPA portfolio is roughly 6 GW peak, right? Our LOA portfolio is around roughly around 5 GW peak now, right?

Can you help us with your with your expectation of LOA to PPA conversion in the next few months?

Right. Mohit, I think what we're seeing is a lot of traction for peak power, right, because a lot of states are struggling, right?

As you mentioned, I think there is as such a major gap in terms of peak power, and again, with a lot of FDRE projects where the PPAs have happened, right, not a lot have come up. The fact that a lot of BESS capacity which was bidded out has also not come up, right?

We are still finding traction and also from our procurers where we have commissioned this FDRE, right? They believe that given that we have delivered, at least that benefit is then with us.

In terms of capacity that we're looking at in conversion, right, I think we signed a PPA, a 50 MW PPA yesterday with SJVN, this is on the FDRE. Now we have another 550 MW of FDRE capacity which is remaining.

We are in advanced discussions on 350 MW of FDRE capacity for that, wherein the procurers have confirmed that they have a buyer. Of course, we'll confirm as and when it gets signed, right, and we'll, of course, let the markets know.

That is the capacity we are looking at. We are also in discussions for one of the hybrid projects, right?

That is again in very, very advanced discussions, which is again a 150 MW contracted capacity, right? So 350 MW of contracted plus 150 50.

I think the other thing that we are very, very hopeful in terms of getting done very, very fast is the thermal mimic, right? The thermal mimic as I think you would have seen or you would have read statements, we have been informed, I think privately or by SECI, that I think it's a tariff which is pretty attractive, right, given where the thermal tariffs sit at and how this tender actually replicates thermal, right?

We believe that capacity, which is a pretty big capacity of 1 GW peak plus 2.2 GWh, right, is something that should come in fast, right? Overall, I think if you combine everything, this will be almost more than 2 to 2 yeah, 2 GW of peak capacity plus around 4 GWh of BESS capacity, that is something that we are looking at doing in the next few months.

My next question will be: given the fact that the Government of India has now asked SECI to only conduct the bid post aggregating the demand, should it lead to a higher conversion from LOA to PPA for the bids which are happening right now? Is that a good understanding?

I think, of course, time will tell, but it can work both ways. I think the good part of it is, they are no competing entities, right?

I think what has happened in the past is where similar tenders, right, have happened and different tariffs have been discovered just because how the auction process goes on, right? There are a lot of not fully subscribed tenders, right, where someone throws at 3.40, someone throws at 3.30, right?

What would happen then is with four entities going to the distribution entity, right, and if say one goes in, they find interest, then the other will go in. I think that confusion would definitely move out, right?

We see that benefit coming through from having a single entity. I think given that, I think especially the conversion from an LOA to a PPA should be more, because it will be more focused.

I think there will be less shopping from the discom side. In terms of, okay, the number of tenders that can happen, probably there will be a limitation vis-à-vis what would happen with, say, four guys tendering, right?

The fact is that if it would lead to a more better LOA to PPA conversion, then it's as such more beneficial, right, for everyone.

For clarification, let's say, for this particular bid, which is RTC mimic, is it right to think that the SECI has already spoken to a lot of these states, and they are in agreement, and that's why the bid was floated, and the demand is mostly tied up? Is that the right understanding, or the SECI is doing the bid and then trying to find out the procurers?

Right. I think, again, this is, I think, informal discussions with SECI when I think a lot of guys have gone when the bid was underway, right, or there were tender discussions, right.

I think this was a very, very unique tender, and SECI had probably discussed with a lot of distribution companies on what they want, right? I think they had tariff expectations as well.

We believe the tariffs that have come out are well within the tariff expectations that were there from these discoms, right? Again, I think we believe SECI has had discussions, right?

Of course, we cannot confirm because until the PPA happens, we don't have any proof, right? We believe that discussion has happened.

SECI, of course, knowing what has happened previously, right, now again wants to be doubly sure, right? I think those discussions have happened, and I think generally, right, if you look at how this tender is structured, right, it is because there have been a lot of changes to make it actually work like a thermal project, right, where I think there have been last-minute changes where we were asked that to reduce the CUF to 60 less than 60% during the daytime because that's what thermal guys are also asked to, right?

Now given that and the tariff that has come in, right, and the tariff for new thermal tenders, we believe there will be a lot of interest, and that's probably what SECI also believes.

Understood, sir. Thank you and all the best.

Thank you.

My first question is can you talk about, let's say, from whom you are buying this BESS, and currently these are the confirmed placed orders, and at what prices it's happening?

Right. Sourabh, in terms of BESS, right, I think what we've done is slightly different from how right now the industry is working, but I think we are largely looking at a fully integrated solution, right?

If you look at BESS happening in the West, right, or outside India, largely it happens through an integrator where the integrator, and this could be the ultimate OEM as well, right, who gets the full solution, which is the container, the EMS, and the PCS fully integrated and provides it as a full solution,

right?

Now in India, largely what has happened is the container is coming off separately, PCS is being procured directly by the IPP, and then there is a EMS provider which is doing the integration. Now what we have done is slightly different.

We have gone the other way. We've gone the way how it's happening globally.

We will, of course, keep on looking at this solution as well as we grow, right, and gain more confidence in how this thing works. What we have done is we are getting the PCS, the EMS, and the battery container from a single entity who provides this as a fully integrated single solution.

They deliver it to our site. We basically install it under their supervision, they commission it, and then we have an LTSA which not only covers the warranties, but the O&M for this entire thing for 15 years, right, of 15 to 20 years depending upon the life of the battery, right?

For a double-cycle, two-cycle battery, we get a 15-year life; for a single-cycle battery, it goes to 20 years, right? We have a flexible throughput warranty.

Now what we have done, there are limited players for this kind of a thing in India. There is Envision, right, they own AESC, which is one of the best cell manufacturers.

There is Sungrow, which is again a full-scale integrator, world's largest integrator. There used to be Fluence, right, but Fluence has now left the market.

We are, of course, talking to CATL and others as well in terms of if they can provide a full solution. What we have done is when we have first contracted our battery, we came out with a tender, we got these guys in, right?

In that case, the first guy we worked with was Envision, right? Now what we have done is the full 4.5 GWh that we have mentioned, this entire capacity, all the contracts are signed, right?

They are firm contracts. It's fully from Envision.

Envision gets the containers, right, and these are AESC cells, Envision containers. They get the PCS and do the integration.

The integration happens through another company that they own, which is called Univers. This is again one of the world's largest data analytics company on the renewable side, right?

They do the EMS. This entire 4.5 GWh has come from Envision.

In terms of pricing, right, I think what we were able to do, and that is why we believe a relationship is very, very important here, right? We closed more than close to 2 to 2.5 or 3 GWh somewhere in January of '26.

That was done at a container price which was around $59 to $60, right? Now that price on the containers has gone up over the last four, five months, right?

This number had gone up to $68 to $70, primarily because of the lithium carbonate price, right? The lithium carbonate has cooled down.

This number today will be between, I think, $65 to $68, right? Majority of the batteries, 2, 2.5 GWh of batteries that we procured, the container price is around $58 to $60.

This is just the container price. The all-in price comes to, which is the BOS plus the tax and duty, comes to around $100, right?

I think there are some batteries that we have closed a couple of months back, those are at around $68, right? The overall pricing goes to around 110.

That's the number that we've closed these batteries at.

Sure, this is quite helpful. Second is, sir, can you, let's say, a little elaborate on within these FDRE tenders, we come across different strategies, high-wind, low-wind, or maybe all BESS.

What are the factors which matter to take this decision? Or, sir, it's a company-wise strategy which is different in taking this decision?

If you could elaborate on that, because in our, let's say, presentation also I see the first set of FDRE shows 2 hours on the contracted capacity, and then the BESS is 2 hours. The next ones is showing 4 hours,

and

in future you are building in 6 hours. I also hear that recent thermal mimic requires wind.

If you could elaborate on that, that would be really helpful.

Right. See, yeah.

I think the dependence upon how much wind will come in or solar has been a combination of what the tenders are, but also on what the cost of batteries have been, right? I think we've been there on the FDRE right from the start, right?

End of 2023 when we won one of our first tender, commissioned the first project, right? Now at that point, and so all our FDRE tenders till date before the thermal mimic were peak power tenders, where we had to provide 4 hours of peak power, 2 hours in the evening, 2 hours in the morning, right?

We could use any combination. It was not just solar, everything to solar, wind.

We can only do solar, we can do no batteries, right? Any combinations were allowed, and these were the initial tenders, right?

Initially when we started off, battery prices in '23, '24 very or '23, right, were very, very high, more than $300. Largely the mechanism that I think everyone, then I can be, I think, pretty sure that it's almost everyone, was that they would overbuild wind and solar, right, and try to provide the peak power through that rather than through any battery.

There, of course, will be uncertainty, there will be penalties, but numbers were still working out, right? Now essentially what had happened as we built our first project, right, the first project that we built, the battery prices went down, right?

Came down to the numbers that we're currently telling is around 100, came down to around $150, $160, right? Now when that happened, what we did, we reduced the wind, right, to almost half, we kept solar as it is, and we increased the battery to almost one and a half times of the contracted capacity.

The understanding being that we derisked the model wherein we got a C/2 battery which gets doubly charged, gets charged from solar during the day, discharges during the evening two peak hours, and then again charges from wind at night and discharges in the morning peak hours, right? Now what has happened subsequently is with the battery costs going down further and further, right, now as we mentioned, we closed batteries at around $100.

When we move from our first model to the solar plus wind plus battery model, we did not lose a lot in terms of returns, right, because the battery costs had gone down. Now subsequently, the play was as battery costs further went down, right, to $100, just a plain solar plus battery solution, where what we did was say we reduced wind to almost a very small capacity, we increased solar, and we doubled the battery capacity.

What we're then looking at is a single-charged battery from solar, which is a C/4 battery. It will discharge during 4 hours during the night, or so 2 hours in the evening, 2 hours in the morning.

The other flexibility that can be there for the buyer is if they even want this 4 hours during the night or 2 hours during the night and 2 hours late night, we can provide that. We've moved across.

I think just to tell you or just to reinforce the fact, what happened is a lot of it has to do with the cost of the solutions, right? What is continuously happening is the battery costs have come down.

Now at a certain inflection point, the solar plus battery beats wind, right, or at least matches the returns from wind. Then what happens is now wind is, of course, more difficult to execute, right, vis-à-vis a solar plus battery solution.

Wind again is there are variations in terms of generation profiles, right? Then what you do is, if the returns match, right, or are nearby, then you'll do a solar plus battery solution,

right? Right.

At current prices, then solar plus BESS is preferable, or at what price this decision moves?

Yeah. As I mentioned, right, when we were at $150, right, which is the first battery that we contracted, or even when it went to around $130, $140, this question was asked to us, and we said we are still going with a solar plus wind plus battery solution.

Now the prices have come down, the pricing is today or the ones that we closed are $100, today even if you look at that other number, it is at around $108, right? At that number, we believe a solar plus battery solution is as good as a solar plus wind plus battery solution.

Now given the fact that solar plus battery is then easier to execute, right, while not losing out on the returns, it makes common sense logic, right? That's the logic.

Yeah. Can I ask one question more?

Yeah. That would be, sir, in past, whenever this thermal mimic order came, those were not getting signed, right?

I don't know whether you also have any of the tender won in that. FDRE had, of course, two, three types.

Thermal mimic, the load-following, was finding it tough to get executed. One, you can give status on that.

Second is what is different this time that Is the load-following profiles what is coming in tenders is now more flexible? That is why this time thermal mimic looks will be set.

Right. See, yeah, I think a couple of tenders which were done by SECI on the load-following ones, I think the issue was those load-followings one were very, very specific to a certain state, right, did not provide peak power throughout the night, right?

What had happened was when the tariff was discovered, and the tariffs were, I believe, in the range of around 5.50, right, or that number, right? There were only these couple of tenders that happened, right?

There was an issue in terms of the expectation, right? Now I think the difference this time is the tender that is there, it is not about one state.

It basically tries to match in terms of flexibility as well everything that, say, a thermal project would provide, right? Essentially, if overall the CUF for this plant, right, throughout the year would be around 75%, right?

It takes away from the transmission charge point as well, right? If you're building this, right, project, and with the waivers going away, right?

For a distribution company looking at a thermal plant versus a new renewable plant for base load demand, there used to be an issue on the transmission charge that would be there on a solar plant or a renewable plant, right, because the CUF will be only 30%. The transmission charge, if there was no waivers, will double, right?

Now in this case, since the number is 75%, and a thermal plant would also be expected to run at 70% to 80%, one is that transmission charge waiver issue goes away, right? Then we are not fighting for months on whether this project will come under a waiver or not under a waiver, right?

Because the understanding is now very, very clear from the government, we are now moving to a scenario where there are no subsidies, there is no waivers, and it's a pure play, right? I think that has changed.

In this tender specifically, there is a lot more flexibility, right? We have to provide power all through the day, there is a 12-hour peak.

I think the other thing that will also happen is, when those peak power tenders happened, right, earlier, all those issues around what has happened in this year, right? For some reason, right, a lot of buyers, especially discoms, right, do generally look at what is happening currently to decide on what should we do, right?

I think last year, even if you talk to analysts, right, the thing was that because of better monsoons, right, there was not a lot of pressure. Everyone thought that we've actually overbuilt, right, whether we should buy or not.

I think those things are changing with what has happened this year, right?

Fair enough.

That's why, I think, even similar peak power tenders, right? That's where a lot of traction should also come for this, right?

Accordingly Right.

Do you have any old order which you believe can be signed or not signed?

No. Earlier what we had done was we were only participating in these peak power tenders, right?

We have whatever we have won, and I think most of the peak power contracts are signed. There are a couple of tenders, as we mentioned earlier in the call, right, we're close to signing.

This is the first one that we looked at in terms of a thermal mimic tender, right? I think, again, as you mentioned, right, the time at which those load-following tenders happened, battery prices were probably not in the range that they are today to manage the solution for the entire 24 hours, right?

Today, batteries have become at a certain level where we believe this kind of a profile can be managed pretty well with a solar plus battery kind of solution, adding some wind. I think wind will be added primarily to accentuate returns, right?

That's how the thing is.

Perfect. This is pretty helpful.

Thank you very much, sir. All the best.

Congratulations for the good set of numbers. My first question is for this thermal mimic order, when is the grid connectivity available to us?

Grid connectivity

we already have for this tender.

In Rajasthan, right?

Yeah. Grid connectivity is already available, and this will be in Rajasthan.

Okay. There's no constraint from that angle.

When we can expect its COD to happen?

Yeah. Once the PPA is signed, then accordingly, as per the timelines, we will be commissioning the project.

Because as we mentioned, we have around 4,500 MW surplus connectivities are already available, so that we can plan accordingly as per the PPA requirement.

Other thing is any changes you are seeing in the module prices because of this various developments which has happened in last two to three months, in the DCR prices and non-DCR prices? How much is generally going rate today for these modules?

See, I think the module pricing has been pretty low, right, and essentially because of two things, right, because there was a glut in China, and there was a glut in India as well, right? We have closed our modules at close to around 12.1 to 12.2 rupees per watt peak.

These are, of course, non-DCR, because for our current capacity, apart from the thermal mimic tender, right, all our capacity does not require any DCR, right? DCR is, of course, right now something that we're not buying, yeah.

On the non-DCR, we've closed at 12.1 to 12.2 rupees.

In the thermal mimic, generally how much we have considered the DCR module prices?

At around 17

rupees. 17 rupees.

Fine. Just one thing is can you give the EBITDA guidance for FY27 or '28?

How much do you expect?

Right. Sudhanshu, I think what we have guidance is on the run-rate EBITDA, right?

FY28, we're looking at close to 6 GW capacity being commissioned. The run-rate EBITDA for that is close to 4.5 4,500 crores.

For FY27?

By FY27, again, we'll be looking at capacity which will be close to 4 4 GW, right? We add now 2 GW that we mentioned.

The run-rate EBITDA for that capacity sits at around 20 2,700 crores, 2,750.

Okay. Just last bookkeeping question about the PAT, there is a change in the depreciation policy and other.

What are the one-offs of EBITDA onwards which has impact on PAT?

Right. Sudhanshu, as we mentioned that we have completed the refinancing of our three projects.

There is around 18 crore one-time cost is the refinancing cost, which is coming in the PAT. That has impacted our PAT.

If that has not been there, then PAT would have been increased to that amount, adjusted for the tax only.

The depreciation, why we have changed the policy? What is the basis for that?

The depreciation policy has been aligned. We have got this assessment done, and it has been aligned as being the market practice and being followed by others also, and we have got that estimate done.

Accordingly, our depreciation policy has been aligned.

Okay. Thank you so much, sir, and best of luck.

Hello. Hi, sir.

I hope I'm audible. I wanted to ask a few questions, the first one being: following the IPO, does management intend to rationalize or say consolidate the current 56 subsidiaries?

Then what is the roadmap for simplifying the corporate structure as more SPVs become operational?

Sorry, can you repeat? We did not get the question.

Sure. Now that the IPO is done, does the management by any chance intend to rationalize or say consolidate the current 56 subsidiaries, and then what will be the roadmap to simplify the corporate structure as I'm assuming more SPVs will become operational?

Right. If you will see, we have a very simple, straightforward corporate structure where the listed company is a holding company.

As it's the nature of our business, whenever we go for any tender, we have to do these projects in a special SPV doing these projects, signing the PPA, and for the financing also it is ring-fenced to a particular SPV. That's the requirement of the business.

Wherever you go for any new project or the connectivity and the PPA, it is generally done through a separate SPV structure, so that you can sign the PPA or you can do the financing and in the ring-fenced environment. This is a very typical structure for any infrastructure business.

That makes sense. My next question was that BESS is becoming a much larger part of the portfolio now.

With operational capacity already at about 503 MWh and another 4,000 MWh ordered, could you kind of help us understand the economics of these BESS projects, particularly the expected returns or margins, the revenue model, and whether you see BESS becoming a meaningful contributor to your EBITDA over the next two, three years?

Right. Manasvini, I think BESS is very, very important, right?

As we mentioned, we're looking at getting to 4.5 GWh by June, right, and close to 10 by March '28. I think essentially we'll not be able to differentiate between what kind of revenue is coming from BESS because what we are doing on BESS is not standalone batteries.

What we are trying to do is include those in our renewable contracts, right? All our FDRE contracts or the thermal mimic tender, right, has this BESS as an inbuilt, and we get a common tariff, right?

Very, very difficult to differentiate in terms of what revenue will come from BESS. It is largely a full solution that we're providing.

I think in terms of returns, right, I think whenever we are looking at our projects, right, because we were early starters on these FDRE tenders, right, we had returns which were significantly higher. Even for new tenders, right, we are looking at higher teens in terms of returns.

That is on an overall basis, right? I think standalone BESS, if you're looking at, we are not doing a lot of standalone BESS because right now the numbers don't make a lot of sense to us.

It is working in terms of a transmission element where I think returns are pretty low. We're not doing standalone.

It largely will be BESS as part of our overall power solution, right? That is how we're looking at this.

Within that, as we mentioned, there will be opportunity for the merchant BESS, which we will be doing.

Yeah.

Perfect. That makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

Yeah. Hi, sir.

Just one question regarding the BESS, which is that what is the kind of capacity that we expect to operate on a merchant basis for let's say FY27 and FY28? If you can give some idea on that.

Right. Dhruv, in terms of the 4,500 MW 4.5 GW, right, that gets installed by June '27, there is 1.5 GW which is actually right now not linked to a project that will come up in the next couple of years, right, will be for future.

That will definitely run as merchant. Now what will also keep on happening is, the capacity that are coming up, there is close to 700 MWh which is expected to add on to the 500 which is there right now by December of this year, right, in stages.

That entire 700 would also run on merchant. Some of it will go off into a PPA by June, right?

Overall what will happen is the 1.5 GW will be running, say, for the next one to two or two years, right, fully as merchant. Then of the other capacity, right, on and off, there will be a combination so for 9 to 12 months, right, depending upon when the GNA kicks in, right, will run as merchant, right?

So 1.5 is firm capacity which will run as merchant. I think there will be further capacities which will come in of the 4.5 and then from 4.5 to 10 which we start putting up in the following year, right, which will come in as merchant.

Understood, sir. Just on the margin side, what kind of margins can we expect from the sale of this power?

Right.

Okay. The margins this year have been pretty significant, right, and those margins have been because of two two things, right?

One is the daytime tariffs from which these batteries are getting charged, right, that itself has gone down, right? When earlier this number would be sitting at say last year this number would be or a year before that this number would be sitting at 2.5 rupees, that number has gone down to 1 1 rupee or 1.3 rupees.

I think in terms of the sale, of course, we have to close this full year. If you look at just 20 20 '25 numbers, this average full-year number was around 8, but what we have looked at in this year, right, this year there's been sale on HP-DAM, right, the numbers may be higher, right?

We have sold significant amount of power on the HP-DAM market as well, right, where the limit is up till 20 rupees, right? There has been power sold at those levels as well.

We'll, of course, once the full year gets done, right, because weather also plays a big role, right? That number should be significantly higher on the sale part as well.

I think in terms of the buying for charging, that number will be around 1.5 rupees, 1 to 1.5, and the other number will be probably higher than what the earlier numbers were.

Understood, sir. That's all from my side.

Thank you so much.

Yeah. Thanks for the follow-up.

My question is on the thermal mimic project. How should one think about operational challenges there?

Okay. Puneet, in terms of operational challenges, we are largely looking at a solar plus battery solution adding wind.

Wind is being added because if you look at the tariffs, right, the firmness in which how we have to provide power will come through a solar plus battery capacity, right? That we believe is not something which is very difficult to handle operationally,

right?

That's how we look at it.

Would there be some surplus power generation which you'll need to sell to grid or something that you need to buy from the grid?

Okay. In terms of what we're looking at, there will be some surplus during the day, right, which will be when we structure it, it could be close to I think around 1% or 2 2%, right, overall,

right?

That will be there. Otherwise, yeah, how we have structured, we are not taking a call that we'll have to buy power from outside, right, because especially during peak hours, right, we cannot take a call that and it has to be renewable power as well, right?

Essentially cannot take that call that we'll buy something from outside.

Okay. There will be surplus production up to 2% which you can sell to the grid, and the rest you should be able to manage on your own?

We are not considering that anything will be realized from

that. Understood.

That's very helpful. Great.

Thank you so much, and all the best.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much, everyone, for coming in, and hope we could answer all your questions.

We have already shared our contact details with you guys. If you have any further queries, you can reach out to us.

Thank you.

Thank you,