By Dhananath Fernando
Originally appeared on the Morning
The tug of war between the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) is not new to Sri Lankans – or to taxpayers.
At one point during President Maithripala Sirisena’s tenure, a Cabinet meeting was called off until the CEB and PUCSL reached an agreement on tariff revisions. In another bizarre chapter, the CEB even organised a special pooja to invoke rain gods, hoping to avoid power cuts and tariff hikes.
Now, the conversation has returned, with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) insisting that electricity tariffs must be cost-reflective as a condition for the release of the next tranche of funding. While there is a lot of noise about tariff hikes and methodologies, the critical push for structural reform remains absent. Once again, electricity users find themselves on the receiving end, with little clarity on a long-term path to reduce costs.
Concerns have deepened with proposed amendments to the Electricity Act that threaten to roll back past reforms. The outcome? Consumers and industries may have to bear higher electricity costs, whether as tariffs, taxes, or inflation.
Understanding the basics: What drives tariff structures?
There are three core principles when it comes to setting electricity tariffs:
Electricity is a homogeneous product: One kilowatt (kW) of electricity provides the same energy, regardless of whether it comes from coal, wind, or solar. While the cost of generation varies, the energy output is identical.
The cost of electricity varies by time of use: Although electricity is a homogeneous product, its cost fluctuates based on demand. Peak-hour electricity typically costs more, as it relies on expensive and quick-response generation sources.
Electricity is hard to store: Unlike other commodities, storing electricity is extremely costly. This means supply and demand must be balanced in real time, making pricing and grid stability critical.
Cost-reflective pricing is currently the principle we follow, largely in line with IMF recommendations. But cost-reflectivity alone is not enough. If the system’s inefficiencies remain unaddressed, then reflective prices will only continue to rise.
Previously, we ignored this reality by allowing the CEB to operate at a loss. These losses didn’t vanish; they resurfaced as taxes, inflation (when financed by money printing), or higher interest rates (when financed through debt).
Why are costs high?
One of the main reasons for persistently high electricity costs is our outdated grid infrastructure. Our failure to connect to India’s electricity grid also leaves us with missed opportunities. A grid connection with India could help us stabilise our own grid and export surplus electricity – particularly solar power – thereby reducing domestic costs through offsetting.
Worse yet, the new amendments to the Electricity Act propose rebundling generation, transmission, and distribution, undoing previous reforms that sought to separate them. Unbundling improves accountability and productivity; rebundling risks taking us backward.
What should be done: Now and long-term
Long-overdue transmission upgrades require significant capital. For that, we need a structure that welcomes private investment while ensuring strong regulatory oversight. Currently, the regulator is weak, and the CEB, as a State monopoly, easily passes cost increases onto consumers without consequence.
Electricity reform is complicated and takes time. But while we figure out long-term changes, here are a few short-term, actionable steps that could help manage the situation:
Unify user categories: Sri Lanka currently maintains multiple user categories – domestic, religious, Government, etc. – violating the principle of homogeneity. A single unit of electricity cannot and should not be priced differently at the same time for different consumers. Instead of offering cross-subsidised tariffs, direct cash transfers should be used to support vulnerable consumers. This will promote demand-side efficiency and encourage responsible energy use.
Abolish Rate 1 and adopt Time-of-Use (TOU) pricing: The Rate 1 category for bulk users must be eliminated. Instead, TOU pricing should be applied universally. Uniform pricing flattens important price signals and discourages efficient energy use. TOU pricing, on the other hand, encourages load shifting, optimises grid use, and better reflects real costs.
Improve cost transparency: When reporting its cost structure, the CEB must clearly separate:
Generation costs: Disaggregated by plant, including fuel, labour, maintenance, and capital, along with justifications for deviations from least-cost dispatch principles
Network costs: Covering transmission and distribution infrastructure
Overheads: Including administration, billing, metering, and customer services
Similarly, losses must be broken down into:
Technical losses: From grid, transformers, and substations
Commercial losses: From theft, faulty meters, or billing errors
Collection losses: From non-payment or delays
Transparency will shine a light on inefficiencies, allowing policymakers and the public to demand reform based on evidence.
Cost-reflective pricing is necessary, but not sufficient. What matters more is reducing the cost itself. And that cannot be done by regulation alone. It requires competition, productivity, and bold structural reforms.
Until we summon the political courage to tackle these long-standing issues, the electricity sector will remain trapped in a cycle of inefficiency, passing the burden from the State to the citizen, again and again.
(Source: Advocata submission to PUCSL on electricity tariffs)
