Funding Climate Transition in India
More concessional money points at climate than at anything else in this lane. It's also where the qualification test is hardest, because much of India's climate economy is already commercially funded.
Summary
- Utility-scale solar, large wind and established EV segments are commercially financed. The gap is unproven technology, hard-to-abate industry, MSME decarbonisation, distributed energy, waste and water, and adaptation.
- Climate has one currency, tonnes of CO2e avoided, so the failures are arithmetic ones: no baseline, a convenient boundary, double counting. And additionality means two things here, financial and carbon.
- Climate's financing problems are tenor, first-of-a-kind risk and currency. None of them is an equity problem, yet climate founders raise equity for them more than any other sector.
Climate is the busiest part of this lane by a wide margin. Dedicated climate funds, multilateral climate finance, green windows inside every development institution, foundations with climate programmes, and a steady flow of new facilities.
It's also the sector where I see founders waste the most time, and for a reason that's almost the opposite of what they expect. The problem isn't that climate capital is scarce. It's that a great deal of India's climate economy is now comfortably commercial, and patient money has no reason to go there.
The line that matters
Utility-scale solar in India is a mature, commercially financed asset class. Large wind is financed. Established EV segments attract substantial venture and growth capital. Grid-connected renewables have pension funds and sovereign investors competing for them.
A founder in any of that asking a foundation for concessional capital is going to have a short conversation, and correctly so. If commercial money is already crowding in, concessional capital showing up is a failure by its own standards: it's subsidising something the market had handled.
The gap is elsewhere, and it's specific.
- Unproven technology. Anything where the engineering works but nobody has financed it at scale in Indian conditions. Commercial lenders can't price first-of-a-kind risk, which is exactly what first-loss and catalytic capital exist for.
- Hard-to-abate industry. Cement, steel, chemicals, industrial heat. Enormous emissions, difficult economics, long paybacks, and nothing like the investor enthusiasm that renewables enjoy.
- MSME decarbonisation. Thousands of small manufacturers who could cut energy use significantly and cannot access financing to do it. The individual tickets are too small for commercial lenders to underwrite economically.
- Distributed and decentralised energy. Serving customers the grid serves badly, where the credit risk is genuinely hard rather than merely unfamiliar.
- Waste, water and circular economy. Chronically underfunded relative to energy, with messier revenue models.
- Adaptation and resilience. More on this below, because it's the most misunderstood part of climate finance.
The single currency
Climate is different from every other sector in this lane in one important way: it has a dominant metric, and everything else is .
Tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, avoided or reduced, calculated under recognised greenhouse gas . Narrative matters less here than anywhere else in impact finance. Your emissions arithmetic is the argument.
Which means the failure modes are arithmetic failures, and there are three worth knowing.
No baseline. An avoided-emissions claim is a comparison against what would otherwise have happened. If you haven't defined that counterfactual carefully (what the customer was using before, what the grid mix actually is, what the realistic alternative was), the number is unsupported, and climate funders are more practised at spotting this than almost anyone.
Boundary problems. What's inside your calculation and what isn't. Manufacturing emissions, transport, end-of-life, the emissions embedded in what you replaced. Founders tend to draw the boundary where the number looks best, which is visible to anyone who does this professionally.
Double counting. If someone else is also claiming the same reduction (a customer, a partner, a carbon credit buyer), you have a problem that surfaces in diligence rather than after.
The workable approach is the same as in every other sector, just with more maths: define the method, write it down, apply it consistently, and be conservative. A defensible smaller number beats an ambitious one that falls apart under questioning.
Additionality means two things here
This trips people up and it's worth separating carefully, because climate is the one sector where the word does double duty.
Financial additionality is the first of the four gates: would commercial capital have funded this anyway?
Carbon additionality is a different question, from the carbon-market world: would these emissions reductions have happened anyway, without this intervention? A solar installation that was going to be built regardless doesn't generate additional reductions just because someone financed it differently.
You may have to satisfy both, and they're not the same argument. A project can be financially additional and carbon-non-additional, or the reverse. Climate funders will ask about both and will notice if you conflate them.
Adaptation is where the need is and the money isn't
Global climate finance flows overwhelmingly to mitigation, reducing emissions, rather than adaptation, which means helping people and systems cope with changes already underway. Heat resilience, water security, climate-resilient agriculture, flood protection, early warning.
India has enormous adaptation need. Adaptation businesses have a harder financing path, because the benefit is avoided damage rather than a revenue stream, and avoided damage is difficult to monetise and difficult to attribute.
If you're building in adaptation, two things are true at once. The commercial case is genuinely harder, so expect a longer road. And the concessional pool is less crowded, and the funders who are mandated on adaptation are actively looking, because they struggle to deploy. Your additionality case is usually strong: that's precisely the point.
A word on carbon credits
Founders increasingly arrive with carbon revenue in the model, and I'd be careful.
The voluntary carbon market has had a difficult few years on credibility, with real scrutiny of whether claimed reductions were additional and permanent. Buyers have become more discerning, pricing is uneven, and a business whose economics depend on carbon revenue is carrying a risk most investors will discount heavily.
Carbon revenue as upside is fine. Carbon revenue as the reason the work is not.
That second position is one most funders will push back on, and they're not wrong to.
The instrument question
Climate has three structural financing problems, and knowing which one you have tells you what to ask for.
Tenor. Climate assets have long paybacks. Commercial lenders in India will frequently offer three to five years for assets that pay back over ten or more. That mismatch is the single most common reason a viable project doesn't get financed, and concessional debt with matched tenor is the fix. It's the same mismatch that holds back district hospitals.
First-of-a-kind risk. No lender will price technology nobody has financed before. First-loss capital sitting underneath is what makes the first three projects possible, after which the risk is priced and commercial capital follows. This is blended finance working exactly as designed.
Currency. International climate capital is usually dollar-denominated while your revenue is in rupees, and that mismatch either kills the deal or gets priced painfully. Local currency guarantee facilities exist specifically for this, and they're underused because founders don't know to ask.
Notice that none of those three are problems. Climate founders raise equity for what are structurally debt and guarantee problems more often than in any other sector I see.
Where to start
- Be honest about whether commercial capital would fund you. In Indian climate, more often than founders assume, it would, and that's good news, because the commercial route is faster.
- If it wouldn't, work out precisely why not. Tenor, first-of-a-kind risk, ticket size, currency, or an unproven market. The reason determines the instrument, and naming it accurately is most of the work.
- Then build your emissions arithmetic properly, with a documented baseline, before you need it. In this sector that's not reporting overhead. It's the pitch.
If you want to know whether your climate business clears the four gates, and which instruments fit the problem you actually have, start with the Capital Roadmap Diagnostic.
How useful was this article?
One tap. It tells us what to write more of.
About the author
Lead - Growth & Partnerships, Impact Consulting
Everything Sanskriti has writtenLinkedInThe next one
Get what we publish next, by email.
Working notes on raising, borrowing, protecting, growing and structuring capital in India. One email a week at most, and you can leave any time.
We use your address only to send this. See our privacy policy.
We store your address to send you these emails and nothing else. See our privacy policy.
Related reading
