KPI Green Energy Limited announces a new order win

The project would add 76.6 MW DC—not 110.2 MW—to KPI Green Energy’s capacity-based order book. The 33.6 MW figure is the wind component; the solar component is 33.6 MW AC or 43 MW DC, giving an aggregate project size of 33.6 MW wind plus 43 MW DC solar, or 76.6 MW DC.^[1]

Against the 6.94 GW portfolio/order-book figure referenced in the latest Q1 FY27 update, the incremental impact is:

• Existing base: 6.94 GW
• New hybrid project: 0.0766 GW
• Implied pro-forma size: 7.0166 GW, or approximately 7.02 GW
• Increment: approximately 1.10%, derived from 76.6 MW divided by 6,940 MW.^[2]

This is a modest quantitative increase, but the exact rupee order-book addition cannot be calculated because the LOI value was not disclosed. The project is under a Group Captive arrangement and the company has stated that it adds to the order book.^[3] The 6.94 GW figure should also be treated carefully: the reported update labels it as portfolio capacity, so the 7.02 GW figure is a capacity-based pro-forma illustration rather than a confirmed revised rupee order-book number.^[2]

Commissioning timeline

The confirmed contractual timeline is within 14 months from achievement of Stage-2 connectivity. The project must complete development, construction and commissioning within that period.^[4] No fixed calendar commissioning date is stated in the reported disclosure; therefore, the clock runs from Stage-2 connectivity, not from the 1 September 2026 LOI announcement.

The hybrid project appears economically closer to an IPP/group-captive asset than to a pure EPC order, so its revenue profile should not be benchmarked against EPC margins on a like-for-like basis. However, the filing does not disclose the EPC-versus-IPP revenue split, project value, or the margin expected from this project.

Project structure versus revenue model

• The LOI involves creating an SPV for the development, ownership and operation of a 33.6 MW wind plus 33.6 MW AC / 43 MW DC solar hybrid project under a group-captive arrangement. It also carries a 25-year Energy Supply Agreement. Those features point to an IPP/group-captive ownership model rather than a standalone EPC sale. ^[5]
• KPI Green has stated that the project supports expansion through IPP, group captive and EPC opportunities, but it has not said that the project is being awarded as a separately priced EPC contract to KPI Green. ^[6]
• Therefore, any EPC revenue, if recognised, would likely relate to construction/development services provided to the SPV; the longer-term IPP economics would arise from power supply over the ESA term. The filing does not specify how these components will be contracted or recognised in the accounts.

Margin comparison

A project-level comparison with previous hybrid projects cannot be made from the disclosed figures. The historical series available here reports company-level EBITDA margins, not separate EPC, IPP, or hybrid-project margins. Consolidated EBITDA margin ranged from 29.8% to 38.4% between Q4 FY25 and Q4 FY26 and was 37.7% in Q1 FY27; these figures combine all businesses and cannot be treated as the realised margin on earlier hybrid projects. ^[7]

Analyst read: the key distinction is timing and margin visibility. An EPC component could create earlier revenue recognition during construction but would normally be a project-delivery margin pool; the IPP component would build an operating asset and monetise power supply over 25 years rather than recognise the full project value upfront. Consequently, the hybrid project's reported revenue could initially look more EPC-like if construction services are billed or recognised, while its eventual economics would be IPP-like. That conclusion is structural inference, not a disclosed accounting treatment.

Material gap: no historical segment-wise EPC/IPP margin disclosures, prior hybrid-project margin data, project consideration, or allocation between EPC revenue and IPP asset ownership is reported in the cited material. The current LOI should therefore not be assumed to carry the company's historical EPC margin or consolidated EBITDA margin.

Estimated Capex: A mechanical benchmark based on the reported 150 MW wind project implies approximately Rs 912.22 Crores for 110.2 MW:

• Benchmark cost: Rs 1,241.68 Crores / 150 MW = Rs 8.28 Crores per MW ^[8]
• Implied Capex: 110.2 MW × Rs 8.28 Crores = Rs 912.22 Crores *(derived estimate)*

At the reported 75:25 debt-to-equity funding mix, this would translate into approximately:

The alignment is therefore directionally consistent with the stated project-financing guidance, but it is not a confirmed project-specific funding plan. The 75:25 mix and Rs 1,241.68 Crores cost relate to the initial 150 MW wind project; the cited material does not establish that the same cost per MW or funding ratio has been approved for this hybrid project. The reported Rs 979 Crores sanctioned term loan for the 150 MW project also equates to roughly 78.84% of its stated cost, rather than exactly 75%, indicating a different financing base or additional funding components ^[8].

Important capacity qualification: The project filing describes 33.6 MW of wind and 33.6 MW AC / 43 MW DC of solar, aggregating to 33.6 MW / 76.6 MW DC, not 110.2 MW. It is an LOI-stage project under a group-captive arrangement ^[6]. If 76.6 MW DC is the intended capacity, applying the same benchmark would imply approximately Rs 634.08 Crores, comprising Rs 475.56 Crores debt and Rs 158.52 Crores equity at 75:25 *(derived)*.

Conclusion: Rs 912.22 Crores is a useful mechanical estimate only if 110.2 MW is the intended capacity. For the capacity stated in the filing, the more defensible proxy is approximately Rs 634.08 Crores. Neither figure should be treated as disclosed Capex or as confirmation that the annual-report funding guidance applies unchanged to this LOI.