In February 2026, the United States and India reached a landmark trade deal that reshaped clean energy trade between the two nations. The agreement lowered reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods from 25% to 18% and removed a 25% penalty tariff imposed due to India’s Russian oil imports. For Indian solar exports, this effectively cut total tariffs from roughly 50% to 18%, immediately lifting optimism across the renewable energy sector and providing relief to developers.
This deal marked a reset in US-India trade relations. In return, India committed to purchasing $500 billion in American energy, technology, and agricultural products over five years. Moreover, the agreement encourages India to shift energy imports from Russia to the US and Venezuela, further aligning trade with energy security goals.
Solar Exports and Market Reaction
The impact on solar exports was immediate and significant. In the first nine months of 2025, India exported 10.4 GW of solar modules to the US, nearly 97% of total solar exports, according to JMK Research and Mercom Capital.
This surge was further boosted by strong demand from Europe, where India shipped an additional 1.6 GW, bringing the first nine months’ total to 15 GW. Consequently, Indian manufacturers are consolidating their position as reliable global suppliers.
Waaree Energies, Adani Solar, and RenewSys led the expansion. Their success is underpinned by growing domestic production capacity, which reached 52 GW for solar cells and 55 GW for modules by Q3 2025. At the same time, India’s dependence on imported components is declining.
Module imports fell 39% from the previous quarter, although China still supplies nearly 75% of imports. This shift signals India’s strengthening self-reliance and growing manufacturing sophistication.
Solar Stocks Rally After US-India Trade Deal
Several media resources reported that the stock market responded promptly after the trade deal. Solar-focused firms, including Insolation Energy Ltd. and Oriana Power Ltd., surged over 24% in February 2026, recovering from losses in January. Investors expect that lower tariffs will not only improve profit margins but also accelerate orders and speed up US project pipelines. If the deal is formally ratified in March, analysts predict this momentum will continue.
Additionally, the tariff cut supports supply chain diversification. As the US reduces reliance on Chinese suppliers, Indian manufacturers are emerging as reliable alternatives. In particular, Vikram Solar and Waaree Energies are well-positioned to capture growing shares in utility-scale and commercial solar projects.
Inside India’s Solar Growth Story
Domestic solar development has mirrored export growth. JMK Research further highlighted that in 2025, India added:
- A record 37.9 GW of solar capacity, representing a 54.7% increase from 2024. Of this, utility-scale projects contributed 28.6 GW. Furthermore, the open access segment accounted for more than 38% of utility-scale additions, showing the increasing role of private buyers.
- Rooftop solar also expanded rapidly, with 7.9 GW added in 2025—a 72% rise from the previous year. Programs such as PM Surya Ghar: Muft Bijli Yojana supported this growth by incentivizing households to adopt solar systems.
- Off-grid and distributed solar contributed 1.35 GW, slightly below 2024 levels, but remained an important segment for decentralized power solutions.
Quite evidently, India’s strong domestic manufacturing is the reason for installation growth. By December 2025, cumulative module and cell capacity crossed 200 GW. The market remains concentrated, with the top five cell manufacturers—Waaree, Adani, Vikram, REC, and Rayzon—holding 71% of capacity. In the module segment, Waaree, Adani, Vikram, REC, and RenewSys account for 58%. By mastering efficient production and securing a stable supply of raw materials, these firms continue to strengthen India’s global competitiveness.
Electricity Demand and Renewable Energy Milestones
While exports attract attention, domestic electricity demand is equally critical. IEA’s latest electricity report shows that in 2025, demand rose only 1.4%, the slowest pace since 1972 outside the pandemic. Mild weather reduced cooling needs, early monsoon rains eased peak loads, and industrial activity slowed slightly.
However, this slowdown is temporary. Demand is expected to rebound 6.9% in 2026 and grow at an average of 6.4% annually through 2030. Rising incomes will drive greater air conditioner and appliance use, industrial output is expanding steadily, and electricity use in agriculture and transport continues to rise. As a result, combined with strong exports, India is set to strengthen its position as a key player in global renewable energy.
Government Programs Boost Solar Adoption Nationwide
The IEA report further says that renewable electricity generation reached record levels in 2025, increasing 20% over 2024. Solar PV led the expansion with 24% growth, benefiting from falling module costs and sustained policy support. Consequently, total operational renewable energy capacity surpassed the 200 GW mark, with solar accounting for 53% of total renewable capacity.
Looking ahead, India now draws around 50% of its installed capacity from non-fossil sources, ahead of its 2030 Paris Agreement target.
Government programs continue to encourage adoption. PM-KUSUM promotes solar-powered agricultural pumps, while PM Surya Ghar incentivizes rooftop installations. Furthermore, the launch of India’s first National Policy on Geothermal Energy in 2025 expands the country’s clean energy options, complementing solar development.
Between 2026 and 2030, the country plans to add nearly 300 GW of renewable capacity, with solar leading the way. Domestic manufacturing will support this growth, with 100 GW of ALMM-certified capacity ensuring a self-reliant supply chain.
Grid Modernization and Reliability
As the sector grows, India is shifting focus from capacity addition to reliable operation. In 2025, the Central Electricity Authority mandated Automatic Weather Stations at large solar projects to improve forecasting and ensure stable integration into the grid.
Additionally, the Ministry of Power launched the India Energy Stack to build a digital infrastructure for the power sector. A Utility Intelligence Platform integrates data from distribution companies, improving operations and enabling better planning.
Meanwhile, the Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme continues to roll out, including 203 million smart meters. States that implement reforms efficiently receive additional financial incentives. Together, these measures ensure that India’s growing renewable fleet can operate smoothly alongside coal, gas, and nuclear power.
State-wise Solar and wind capacity addition in India from January-December 2025
Implications of the US-India Deal
Ultimately, the US-India solar tariff cut is more than a trade story. It strengthens India’s renewable energy exports, improves project economics in the US, and enhances the competitiveness of Indian manufacturers.
Moreover, combined with rising domestic demand, record solar expansion, nuclear development, and grid modernization, India’s energy sector is entering a transformative decade. By 2030, the country could lead global clean energy exports while maintaining a diverse and reliable power system.
In short, the tariff cut boosts short-term exports and creates long-term advantages. It strengthens US-India trade ties and aligns closely with India’s renewable energy ambitions through 2030, positioning India as a global solar powerhouse.
- READ MORE: Renewables 2025: How China, the US, Europe, and India Are Leading the World’s Clean Energy Growth
The post India’s Solar and Renewable Energy Outlook to 2030: Impact of the US-India 18% Tariff Cut on Exports appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits