Loading…
"Should we do net metering or open access?" is a common question, but the two aren't really alternatives to each other — they solve different problems, and the right answer usually depends on load size and how much of the site's own roof or land is available for generation.
Net metering is designed around behind-the-meter, on-site generation — typically rooftop solar sized to a fraction of the site's own load, exporting surplus back to the grid for a bill credit. It suits sites that can host generation directly on their own premises and want to offset consumption rather than participate in the wider power market.
Open access lets an eligible consumer — generally above 1 MW contracted demand — bypass the default DISCOM supply and buy power from a third-party generator or the power exchange, using the grid to transport it via wheeling. It suits consumers whose load is too large or whose site cannot host enough on-site generation to matter, and who are chasing a market price advantage rather than self-generation.
Open access carries a cross-subsidy surcharge (CSS) — a charge DISCOMs levy to recover the subsidy an open access consumer would otherwise have contributed to lower-tariff categories. APERC and TGERC publish CSS rates in their tariff orders, and in AP, recent industrial CSS rates have run in the range of roughly ₹1.4–1.8/kWh depending on voltage level. Net metering carries no equivalent surcharge, which is part of why the two are not simply interchangeable options for the same saving.
Source: APERCNet metering scales with available roof or land area and DISCOM-set capacity limits by category, so it naturally suits smaller commercial and industrial loads. Open access economics only tend to work once CSS, wheeling, and scheduling charges are outweighed by the price gap between DISCOM tariff and market power — which usually needs meaningful contracted demand to justify the overhead.
Yes — a site can run rooftop net metering to offset part of its load while separately pursuing open access or group captive structuring for the remainder, particularly where roof area cannot cover full demand. The two approvals are independent processes with different regulators involved, so combining them is a design and sequencing decision rather than a regulatory conflict.
