Connect with us

Features

The Petroleum Bill – its quiet passage and disquieting politics

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

The Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Bill had a quiet passage in parliament with a majority of 60 votes, 77 for and 17 against. What is disquieting is that only 94 of the 224 MPs (excluding the Speaker) were in parliament for the vote on a Bill on petroleum products, the mismanagement of which turned the country upside down in a matter of months this year. The Bill itself is not some masterpiece of legislation to foster proper management of the petroleum sector, but a simple seeming amendment to the Petroleum Products (Special Provisions) Act No. 33 of 2002. It underscores the point that in the absence of real infrastructure and supporting policy regime, there is no legislative, regulatory or constitutional way out of the crisis in the petroleum sector or any other economic sector.

The legal purpose in both the principal enactment in 2002 and the new amendment is to enable the granting of licenses to entities outside the Petroleum Corporation “to import, export, sell, supply or distribute petroleum.” While the 2002 law vested the licensing power in the “Energy Supply Committee” established under the Energy Supplies Act (No. 2, 2002), the new Amendment transfers that responsibility to a (new) committee appointed by the Cabinet of Ministers. The Amendment also redefines the subject Minister by the words “the Minister” instead of “the Minister in charge of the subject of Power and Energy,” as it was in the original Act.

The Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of some of its provisions and the whole Bill itself. The Court held that the Bill itself in one respect and some of the provisions were indeed inconsistent with the constitution but suggested changes to the Bill to remove the inconsistency and the necessity for a two-thirds majority in parliament and even a referendum. Parliament has now passed the bill into law presumably including the changes suggested by the Supreme Court.

Media reports have been calling the amendment as a law to “liberalize the petroleum sector,” obviously taking the cue from the Minister of Power and Energy, Kanchana Wijesekera, who said in parliament that the new Amendment “will allow global suppliers to enter as retail operators, eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) on Jet Fuel and liberalize energy sector.” There is nothing in the eight clauses and four pages of the new Amendment that is not already in the main Act that is going to cause global suppliers to drop everything and rush with petroleum products to cashless Sri Lanka. If at all the new Amendment might be used to create the path of least obstacles to local petroleum wheeler dealers by replacing one obscure committee with another. This aspect of the Bill came up in the hearing before the Supreme Court.

Petroleum Saga

In an earlier article (July 24) I alluded to the saga of the petroleum industry – from pre-nationalization to nationalization in 1961, selective privatization thereafter, and the shift from CPC monopoly to CPC-LIOC duopoly – being a crucial case-study backdrop to the current fuel crisis. Any such case-study should be an exercise in political economy and not constitutional interpretations. Tragically, however, for all the political tumults about the supply and delivery crisis of petroleum products there has not been any corresponding ‘agitation’ in parliament either at the level of soliciting and securing up-to-date information on the supply and status of petroleum products, or at the level having some serious discussion about the petroleum crisis, its causes and potential solutions.

While no one in parliament is showing any serious interest in these matters, it is left to the Supreme Court to step in to fill the void. But filling the void is not solving the crisis and it is not in the business of the solve anything. Nonetheless, the Court’s ruling on the amending bill provides a good summary account of the “existing legal framework” for the regulation (I would add ‘and deregulation’) of the petroleum sector, beginning with the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation Act, No. 28 of 1961.

The current Minister who is now claiming that his new law will eliminate the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, should know from the Supreme Court ruling (if he is not directly familiar with the CPC Act) that the 1961 law that nationalized the petroleum industry has always included provisions permitting the supply or distribution of petrol, kerosene, diesel oil or furnace oil by non-CPC entities with the approval of the Minister or CPC Board of Directors.

These provisions were not utilized by governments not because, as was suggested during the Court hearing, the CPC Act did not ‘contemplate’ regulatory measures for their application but because no government until after 1977 contemplated using them for the import, supply or distribution by non-CPC entities. This included both the governments of the Left and the Right. In fact, it was the UNP government of Dudley Senanayake that entrenched the monopoly of the CPC by building a new refinery in Sapugaskanda with the capacity to meet virtually the entire domestic demand for petroleum products by importing and refining crude oil from Iran.

Legal Labyrinth

Contemplation, if any, to use non-CPC sources for the supply and distribution of petroleum products began after 1977 with the changes in economic direction and philosophy, under a different UNP government led by PM turned President, JR Jayewardene. His government enacted the Petroleum Products (Regulation and Control of Supplies) Act No. 34 of 1979 to provide for the regulation and control of the distribution and use of petroleum products. Nothing much came out of it, and the JRJ government, as I wrote earlier, baulked from making a serious and considered decision about the petroleum sector (or the electricity sector) – whether to continue the CPC monopoly, ‘liberalize’ the whole sector, or selectively ‘unbundle’ it to create a healthy blend of both public and private sector involvement.

The next set of laws came after more than 20 years, in 2002, when Ranil Wickremesinghe was Prime Minister, co-habiting with President Chandrika Kumaratunga. There were three pieces of Legislation – the Energy Supply Act, the Petroleum Products Act and the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka Act, all enacted in 2002. The Energy Supply Act was enacted to purportedly deal with the emerging energy crisis in the country, and the Act enabled the creation of a new Committee, the Energy Supply Committee, but it also provided for the of regulation of “activities of persons engaged in the importation, exportation, storage, distribution and supply of petroleum and petroleum products.”

However, the Energy Supply Act was in operation only for a period of two years from March 2002 to March 2004, and would seem to have died with the sacking (through dissolution of parliament) of the peace-process government of Ranil Wickremesinghe by President Kumaratunga. At the same time, the Petroleum Products Act that was also enacted in 2002 by the Wickremesinghe government has survived his alternations in and out of power and, according to the Supreme Court, has provided “a more empowered regulatory regime over the petroleum industry.”

The Court ruling suggests that the Petroleum Products Act (PPA) “sought to regulate the downstream petroleum sector by removing the monopoly of the CPC and providing for the issue of licences subject to prescribed conditions.” With respect and in policy parlance, the PPA legislation actually sought to achieve the opposite: to deregulate the petroleum sector! Pertinent to the new amendment to the PPA legislation, the latter provided for the licences for the import, export, sale, supply or distribution of petroleum products to be issued by the Minister on the recommendations of the Energy Supply Committee. The latter committee would somehow seem to have survived the demise of its enabling legislation. As I have indicated at the outset, the new Amendment is replacing the Energy Supply Committee by a new Committee.

A word on the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) Act to round off this legal labyrinth, and the underlying overlapping of vested interests. The intended purpose of the Commission (and the Act) is to provide “a framework for the regulation of public utilities industries, which originally included (in the Act’s schedules) only the Electricity Industry and the Water Service industry. The Petroleum Industry was added to the PUCSL list four years later, in 2006, just after Mahinda Rajapaksa became the new President.

As the Court duly noted in its ruling, it was unclear “during the hearing whether there was agreement amongst parties on whether the PUCSL did exercise any regulatory power in terms of the PUCSL Act over the petroleum industry.” And the Court concluded that “the PUCSL does not have any power of regulation over the petroleum industry merely upon it being included in the Schedule to the PUCSL Act.”

What next?

The question now is what difference is the new amendment going to make to the operation of the petroleum sector? The Minister might think that he now has a freer hand to break the monopoly of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation and get non-CPC entities to import and supply petroleum products for local distribution. If the Minister, or the government, wants to really end the monopoly of the CPC, even though there is no monopoly now anyway, it must bite the bullet and privatize the CPC. That way whoever is willing to take over the CPC can use its infrastructure the same way the CPC used the infrastructure of the multinational oil companies after nationalization. In trying to create a parallel system besides the CPC, the government is only leading the country into the worst of both (public and private) worlds. The same way the JRJ government destroyed the bus industry and the school system. Very soon there might be an international university on climate change headed by a new Jennings from Norway!

As for falling into the worst of both worlds, the Supreme Court ruling has laid down the markers to indicate where things easily go wrong. The Court held that in three areas the new Bill was inconsistent with the Constitution and suggested changes. First, the Court directed the new Committee to be restructured to include two additional Ministry Secretaries similar to the Energy Supply Committee. Second, it struck Clause 7, a deeming provision that made any previous act by the Energy Supply Committee legal and unchallengeable in courts. Third, the Court held the whole Bill inconsistent with the Constitution insofar as new Committee was kept outside the purview of Bribery Act. The Court directed the Bill to be changed to include the Committee as a Scheduled Institution under the meaning of the Bribery Act.

Why was it excluded from the purview of the Bribery Act in the first place? The answer is because the real intent behind half-baked attempts at licensing is to create the path of least obstacles to local importers and their foreign suppliers. Even with privatization, it is the responsibility of the government to ensure that proper processes are in place for setting criteria and standards, for competitive bidding, and for the granting of licenses and contracts. That has not been the case at all in Sri Lanka, starting from 1977 and made worse after 2010.

Specific to the petroleum sector, the legislative changes in 2002 under Ranil Wickremesinghe and in 2006 under Mahinda Rajapaksa leaves one to opine if, after all, Mahinda Rajapaksa was continuing from where Ranil Wickremesinghe left. Is it now the other way around? And is national politics now reduced to the two trying to rise together via Ekwa Negitimu? Not to mention, as has been reported, the long distance conversations between Ranil Wickremesinghe and Basil Rajapaksa to consummate a no-contest electoral marriage between the UNP and the SLPP.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

T20 World Cup: Heavyweights, hopefuls and a debutant headline Group 1

Published

on

By

The 12 captains got together at the Waterloo Bridge in London•Jun 07, 2026(Cricinfo)

AUSTRALIA

For the first time since 2017, Australia do not have global silverware to defend, with last year’s ODI World Cup semi-final exit following the relinquishing of the T20 title in 2024 after a hat-trick of trophies. They have a new captain, too, in Sophie Molineux who has taken over from the retired Alyssa Healy butAl has had a tricky start to her job due to a back injury.

Having been beaten at home by India in February, it’s a vital few weeks for the side to reaffirm their standing at the top of the tree. However, they find themselves in the group of death with one of them, India and South Africa unable to make the semi-finals.

While Healy has retired, the core of the squad remains very familiar although the call-up of left-arm quick Lucy Hamilton hints at the new generation. There is no shortage of spin options, so much so that Alana King may struggle to find a place in the XI despite recently being the Player of the Series in West Indies.

Squad: Phoebe Litchfield, Beth Mooney, Georgia Voll, Ellyse Perry, Ashleigh Gardner, Tahlia McGrath, Annabel Sutherland, Grace Harris, Nicola Carey, Sophie Molinuex (capt), Georgia Wareham, Alana King, Kim Garth, Megan Schutt, Lucy Hamilton

Player to watch

Even before Healy’s retirement, injuries had prevented her playing T20Is since the last World Cup so Georgia Voll has had a decent run to establish herself at the top of the order. She has taken it with both hands. In 12 matches Voll is averaging 39.50 with a strike-rate of 156.43 – while the sample size remains small, that’s the highest figure of anyone with at least 400 runs in T20Is.

She made her mark against New Zealand last year, then enjoyed an impressive start to 2026 with 88 against India in Canberra before a breakout century in West Indies, her batting characterised by power down the ground. It feels as though she is already at the stage where she can star in a global event.

Predicted finish: Finalists

BANGLADESH

Bangladesh would hope that ending a five-match losing streak in the week leading up to the World Cup could fetch them some momentum into the tournament. They finished second in the tri series involving Scotland and Netherlands, following a 3-0 home defeat against Sri Lanka. Add to that, Bangladesh have won just three matches out of their previous 25 at the World Cup.
It doesn’t offer a lot of hope to Nigar Sultana’s team, particularly in a group that contains Australia and India. On top of all that is the fact that Bangladesh are playing in England for the first time. It paints a grim picture, but this could be the perfect opportunity to overcome so many odds.
Squad: Nigar Sultana (capt, wk), Nahida Akter (vice-capt), Sharmin Akter, Sobhana Mostary, Shorna Akter, Ritu Moni, Rabeya Khan, Fahima Khatun, Fariha Islam, Marufa Akter, Shanjida Akter, Sultana Khatun, Dilara Akter (wk), Juairiya Ferdous, Taj Nehar

Player to watch

Pace bowler Marufa Akter  could relish the conditions in England, particularly given her ability to swing the ball at decent speeds. An on-song Marufa is a delightful sight for those who love to see the ball seam and shape towards the batters. She has taken eleven wickets in as many matches this year, while maintaining a good economy rate.

But she has little support in terms of pace from the other end. Bangladesh have left-arm seamer Fariha Islam and Ritu Moni’s slow-medium pace. As a result, Marufa has to do most of the attacking in the powerplay, and then return to bowl pinpoint yorkers and slower balls at the death.

Predicted finish: Group stage

INDIA

India enter the T20 World Cup with the tag of ODI champions. However, their form heading into this tournament has been a little iffy. In the last six months, they won at home against Sri Lanka and away against Australia but lost both the away series against South Africa (4-1) and England (2-1).

The three match series against England showed their inclination to have the returning Yastika Bhatia batting at No. 3, which meant Jemimah Rodrigues and Harmanpreet Kaur occupied Nos. 4 and 5. Bhatia was the leading run-getter in the series with 119 runs but her strike rate (126.79) was the lowest among the top-five scorers.

Injuries to Amanjot Kaur and Kashvee Gautam mean India’s combination leans towards a five-bowler strategy with Shafali Verma’s part-time offspin as the addition. India’s familiarity with English conditions – they also toured England in 2025 with wins in each of the white-ball series – means they head into the T20 World Cup with some confidence.

Squad: Harmanpreet Kaur (capt), Smriti Mandhana (vice-capt), Shafali Verma, Jemimah Rodrigues, Deepti Sharma, Richa Ghosh (wk), Arundhati Reddy, Renuka Singh, Kranti Gaud, Shree Charani, Shreyanka Patil, Bharti Fulmali, Yastika Bhatia (wk), Nandani Sharma, Radha Yadav

Player to watch

Smriti Mandhana  is the lynchpin of this India team, and their fortunes will hinge on her. This is evidenced by the fact that she was India’s leading run-getter in last year’s ODI World Cup which they won. She also led Royal Challengers Bengaluru to their second WPL title earlier in the year, while topping the batting charts.

She is not just among the most experienced players in the Indian team but has the advantage of knowing conditions in the UK, thanks to her regular presence in the Kia Super League and the Hundred.

Predicted finish: Semi-finalists

NETHERLANDS

Netherlands will be at their first-ever women’s T20 World Cup (Cricinfo)

Everybody loves a newcomer, and this edition of the T20 World Cup welcomes Netherlands. They secured their spot at the qualifying tournament, where they finished in fourth place and beat the last tournament debutants, Scotland, along the way.

Though cricket is a minority sport in the country, it continues to punch above its weight and history provides plenty of reasons to regard the Dutch as plucky. In 2009, their men’s team made their first T20 World Cup appearance and beat England at Lord’s. In 2023, they were the only Associate nation to play at the men’s ODI World Cup. The women don’t have England in their group but take on heavyweights Australia, India – both for the first time – and South Africa, along with Bangladesh and Pakistan.

In personnel terms, Netherlands have four players with more than 1,000 runs in the format – Sterre Kalis, Babette de Leede, Robine Rijke and Silver Siegers – and they’re all in this squad. Iris Zwilling, their leading seamer, is two wickets away from 100. This will also be a swansong for coach Neil MacRae, who will hand over the reins to former Leicestershire, Namibia and Titans’ women’s coach Pierre de Bruyn on August 1.

Squad: Babette de Leede (capt), Caroline de Lange, Frederique Overdijk, Hannah Landheer, Heather Siegers, Iris Zwilling, Isabel van der Woning, Lara Leemhuis, Myrthe van den Raad, Phebe Molkenboer, Robine Rijke, Rosalie Lawrence (wk), Sanya Khurana, Silver Siegers, Sterre Kalis

Player to watch

Not only is Sterre Kallis their leading run-scorer in T20Is, but she has significant experience playing in England, across the domestic system and in the Hundred. Most recently, Kalis scored three fifties in the ECB Women’s One-Day Cup where she is the sixth leading run scorer.

Kalis has also played at the WBBL and will be able to provide her team-mates with inside information into a side they have never come across before. Along with Babette de Leede, who has experience playing in South Africa, Kalis will headline the batters as the Dutch look to show what they can do against some of the world’s best bowlers.

Predicted Finish One group stage upset and that’s where it will end.

PAKISTAN

As the women’s game develops at pace in many places around the world, there’s a sense Pakistan are struggling to keep up and this tournament could be a litmus test. Not only have their own board’s plans to develop a franchise T20 tournament akin to the men’s PSL stuttered then stopped entirely but, for reasons including geopolitics, their players have almost no exposure to major leagues. The consequences speak for themselves: Pakistan have won only one T20I series in the last two-and-a-half years and that was against women’s FTP newcomers Zimbabwe in May, and won one match in each of the last four editions of the T20 World Cup.

Though they are stacked with talent and have a well-resourced support staff, consistent results and major success are lacking. At an expanded tournament, their first aim will be to show they are a cut above the qualifiers and then to see if they can take some big names along the way. They’ll be hopeful of having their premier seamer, Diana Baig, for the entire tournament after she was injured during the 2024 event and will need their big hitters: Gull Feroza, Eyman Fatima and Natalia Pervaiz to come good to have a successful event.

Squad: Fatima Sana (capt), Aliya Riaz, Ayesha Zafar, Diana Baig, Eyman Fatima, Gull Feroza, Iram Javed, Muneeba Ali (wk), Nashra Sundhu, Natalia Pervaiz, Rameen Shamim, Sadia Iqbal, Saira Jabeen, Tasmia Rubab, Tuba Hassan

Key Player

Pakistan’s dynamic captain, Fatima Sana captured hearts when she had to leave the previous T20 World Cup after the sudden death of her father but then returned to lead thesa side in their final game. Though she earned much goodwill, she was unable to take Pakistan out of the group stage and was criticised for batting too low. Sana remains at No.6 but has had a remarkable 2026 so far, which has included scoring the fastest fifty in women’s T20Is, off 15 balls, and striking at over 200. Combine that with her new-ball bowling skills and the responsibility she carries as skipper, and it’s clear she is key to their chances.

Predicted Finish: Group Stage

 

SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa have done everything but win a World Cup recently – they have reached the last three finals across white-ball formats – so every cricketing conversation in the country is about when they will take the next step. Pressure? What pressure?

While they may face plenty of it from a home base hungry for its first senior white-ball World Cup, South Africa routinely find themselves spoken about behind the big three. That means they may feel less of the spotlight in England, where the home nation has hearts aflutter and other eyes are directed towards the big two in their group. Six-time champions Australia and current ODI World Cup title-holders India stand in South Africa’s path to the semis and the smart money could be on that pair but… South Africa beat India 4-1 in a pre-tournament series at home and knocked Australia out of the last tournament so they’ll back themselves to rise above the reputations they face.

They selected their strongest possible squad, which includes two former captains (Dane van Niekerk and Sune Luus), six seamers, five spinners, two wicketkeepers and a well-set top seven. On paper, they have all the ingredients. In practice, they need to cook.

Squad: Laura Wolvaardt (capt), Tazmin Brits, Nadine de Klerk, Annerie Dercksen, Shabnim Ismail, Sinalo Jafta (wk), Marizanne Kapp, Ayabonga Khaka, Suné Luus, Karabo Meso (wk), Nonkululeko Mlaba, Kayla Reyneke, Tumi Sekhukhune, Chloé Tryon, Dané van Niekerk

Player to watch

It’s hard to look past Laura Wolvaardt, who was the leading run-scorer at the last three ICC events, including two T20 World Cups, as being crucial to South Africa’s chances but they’ve also put their faith in reverse-retiree Shabnim Ismail. At 37, Ismail has not been an active international for over three years but is the leading seamer in league cricket and lost none of the aggression that made her so intimidating to face.

Ismail was included because South Africa’s coach Mandla Mashimbyi felt he was missing genuine pace from his wealth of resources and will likely combine with swing bowler Marizanne Kapp to open the bowling. The pair were South Africa’s top wicket-takers at the home T20 World Cup in 2023 and if conditions favour quicks, could be formidable at this event.

Predicted Finish: Ch… we’d never touch the money.

(Cricinfo)

 

 

 

Continue Reading

Features

Constitutional inconsistencies relating to franchise

Published

on

The Preamble to Sri Lanka’s Constitution states: “The PEOPLE of SRI LANKA having by their Mandate … entrusted and empowered their Representatives … to draft, adopt and operate a new Republican Constitution in order to achieve the goals of a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, whilst ratifying the immutable republican principles of REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRATIC”.

The intent of this exercise is to ascertain whether the practices as adopted by successive Governments to elect the People’s representatives are in keeping with the “immutable principles of Representative Democracy”.

According to Article 3 of the Constitution: “Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchisee”. Furthermore, Article 3 is an entrenched article – Article 83. According to Chapter XIV, titled “The Franchise And Elections”, Article 88 states: “Every person shall, unless disqualified….be qualified to be an elector at the election of the President and of the Members of Parliament or to vote at a Referendum”. Therefore, it is the electors in the Electoral Districts, as determined by the Delimitation Commission (DC), that elect the President and Members of Parliament.

EXISTING INCONSISTENCIIES

= The first relates to Article 96 (1). This states: “The (DC) shall divide into not less than twenty and not more than twenty-four electoral districts…”. The reason for the upper limit for Electoral Districts is perhaps because Sri Lanka was originally divided into twenty-for Administrative Districts (now 25), and 96 (3) establishes a relationship between Electoral Districts and Administrative Districts when it states: “Where a Province is divided into a number of electoral districts the Delimitation Commission shall have regard to the existing administrative districts so as to ensure as far as practicable that each electoral district shall be an administrative district or a combination of two or more administrative districts or more electoral districts together constitute an administrative district”

Despite the fact that the Constitutional direction to the DC was that the Electoral District was to “have regard to the existing Administrative District”, the number of Electoral Districts established by the DC is twenty-two (22) while the number of Administrative Districts are now twenty-five (25). Although the provision to combine Administrative Districts into one Electoral District exists, the reason for the difference is reportedly because the DC decided to factor in issues, such as land which is extraneous to franchise thus compromising the sanctity of franchise and the sovereignty of the electors. On the other hand, if the Electoral District is coterminous with the Administrative District, not only would it protect the elector’s Franchise but also enable the elected members to address the administrative interests of the electors. Would such an opportunity not give substance to the “immutable republican principle of Representative Democracy”?

= The second inconsistency relates to Article 96 (4). This states: “The electoral districts of each Province shall together be entitled to return four members, (independently of the numbers which they are entitled to return by reference to the number of electors whose names appear in the registers of electors of such electoral districts), and the Delimitation Commission shall apportion such entitlement equitably among such electoral districts”.

Consequently, the four members to be returned from each of the nine Provinces amounts to thirty-six additional members, shall be apportioned equitably by the DC among the twenty-two (22) Electoral Districts together with the one hundred and sixty members from the electoral registers, thus making a total of one hundred and ninety-six members being elected through the franchise of the electors. The balance twenty-nine through the National List nominated by Political Parties is also elected by the electors, thus making a total of two hundred and twenty-five (225) Members of Parliament elected through Electoral Districts.

The irony however, is that although Members of Parliament are elected through Electoral Districts, all Executive Powers of the Line Ministries of the Central Government are implemented by the District Secretaries in the twenty-five Administrative Districts. The present convoluted process of appointing a Parliament through Electoral Districts and administering its functions through Administrative Districts cannot be justified. What would be more meaningful is to make Administrative Districts also perform Electoral functions such as appointing the Members of Parliament.

= The third inconsistency relates to the election of Members for Provincial Councils. According to the Provincials Councils Act: “Every administrative district in a Province shall for the purposes of elections to the Provincial Council established for that province, constitute an electoral area”

This is a departure from the practice adopted to elect Members to Parliament since they are based on outcomes from twenty-two (22) Electoral Districts. Therefore, it is worth exploring why Members to Parliament and Provincial Councils cannot be elected using the existing 25 Administrative Districts.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The intention is for an arrangement where Administrative Districts are also assigned electoral functions, so that both Members to Parliament and Provincial Councils could be elected by a single unit. The advantage would be that Administrative Districts could carry out Central Government functions under a District Secretary as at present, a parallel unit within the Administrative District could be set up to implement devolved powers in each of the Administrative Districts, while retaining the existing structural arrangements of Provincial Councils. This would facilitate the coordination of devolved powers with Central Government activities, thus improving productivity of each.

CONCLUSION

The current practice is that while representative of the Government of Sri Lanka is elected by Electoral Districts as stated above, Provincial Councils in the periphery with less powers than the Government are elected by electors in Administrative Districts of each Province. If elections to Parliament and to Provincial Councils are elected by electors in each of the twenty-five Administrative Districts, perhaps one election could elect Members to both bodies.

In view of the significant cost savings involved, it is imperative that serious consideration is given to equip Administrative Districts to serve as Electoral Districts for Parliamentary Elections as well as for Provincial Council Elections, since such an arrangement would further fortify the “immutable republican principle of Representative Democracy”. Furthermore, since such an arrangement would be closer to the People, services to them would be better served.

By Neville Ladduwahetty

Continue Reading

Features

Power cuts are here! But we have a way out!

Published

on

The much-dreaded power cuts are already here though not declared as such. The tragedy is that the power cuts are not due to inadequate electricity supply, but the inability of the power and energy authorities to use the abundant solar and wind power installed without any financial or economic burden on the state. They ought to admit their lack of wisdom to be mindful of the rapid changes in the sector and the need to be equipped.

Fuel Prices have been increased again up to the 2022 levels. Therefore another Electricity tariff hike is inevitable. Perhaps, the government may hold it back until September, when the next tariff revision is due. An appeal has been made to “prosumers” to switch off their solar PV system in the fear of grid stability being affected. While there is excess solar power, which they are unable to manage, even when the demand is below the installed capacity and high contribution of hydro, solar and wind. May 31 (Sunday) energy mix indicated substantial use of oil in CEB-owned power plants and those belonging to the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) . What is the rationale? One would believe that even the hydro reservoir water can be saved for use during the night, without curtailing solar and wind power. It will be said that the system is very complex and beyond the understanding of mere mortals like ordinary “prosumers”, who have added over 2300 MW to the grid, entirely at their expense and at rates well below the average cost of generation. (See Image 1)

Storage Batteries and Renewable Transition

The fact that the growing need for storage batteries to optimise the utilisation of variable renewable energy (VRE) has been felt for the last decade or more, and nothing was done about it, is never mentioned in their laments.

However, there is a glimmer of hope due to the initiatives taken by the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL). An increase in the demand due to a general GDP growth will have to be met using renewable resources. It has been clearly noted that such alternatives must be developed while curtailing the use of oil and ensuring the uninterrupted power to the consumers.

Recognising this need and the fact that fastest intervention is possible by promoting BESS (Battery Energy Storage Systems) to be added to all existing renewable energy sources, the PUCSL has initiated stakeholder consultation to determine the feed-in tariff payable for each type of BESS. A detailed methodology for determining the FIT has been circulated. The identified types of BESS discussed were as follows”

1. Power Plants

a. Mini -Hydro

b. Mini – Hydro-Local: mini hydro plants that at least use locally manufactured turbines

c. Wind

d. Wind – Local: Wind plants that at least use locally manufactured turbine blades

e. Biomass – Dendro – Biomass plants that use sustainably grown fuel wood

f. Biomass – Agricultural/Industrial Waste; Biomass fired plants use byproducts, like paddy husk, sawdust, sugar cane bagasse, etc.

g. Municipal Solid Waste

h. Waste Heat Recovery

i. Ground Mounted Solar PV

j. Floating Solar PV

2. Prosumers

a. Roof Top Solar PV

b. Rooftop Solar PV with Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

c. Prosumers with behind the meter Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

3. Power Plants with BESS

We mentioned in an earlier article that the PUCSL proposed a scheme whereby we can get rid of use of oil for power generation in stages, commencing with elimination of the diesel use by 2027 and all imported oils by 2030.

Stakeholder Meeting & Feed In Tariff( FIT)

The PUCSL has been empowered by the new Electricity Act No 36 (as amended), which came into full force on 09 March, 2026, with responsibility for calculating and announcing all FIT schemes, both for purchase and sale of electricity to consumers.

A well-represented stakeholder meeting was held recently, when the proposed methodology for determining the FIT of each type of BESS was given to them to provide further specific inputs. It is, therefore, realistic to expect such a FIT to be declared by the end of June, 2026.

While this is a welcome and progressive step unlike the ad hoc process adopted hitherto. But the fact remains that the responsibility for the effective use of FIT to attract investors to add the BESS at different scales, lies with the one or more of the newly appointed companies to take over the functions of the former Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB).

Government Recognition of Fossil Fuel Risks

The current government has reportedly recognised the danger of overdependence on imported fossil fuels, which we have absolutely no control over. This is something we have been stressing for a long time. However, better late than never. As a matter of interest, we show the degree of fossil fuel dependence and its adverse impact on the economy. (See Graph 1)

It is to be noted that earnings from our traditional exports of tea, rubber and coconuts fail to meet the ever-increasing cost of importing fossil fuels. Time was when earnings from these exports barely helped meet the cost of import of fuels which was back in 2010. The rupee cost of imports is shown in Billions to keep the data columns within the bounds of the chart. This is the factor which affects you and me directly.

However, we earnestly urge the government to direct the electricity companies to take immediate action to prepare the grid which costs only a fraction of the values predicted by the CEB to institute their schemes which are not in line with the ground reality to accept the BESS system once the FIT is announced. Reasonable BESS and FIT will help attract investors with the assurance of short-term and long-term improvement, at no cost to the state.

Solar PV & BESS Proposal

We proposed some time back of the opportunity for those “prosumers” using 300 units per month, for installing solar PV with adequately sized batteries, which is more economical than drawing power from the grid, and to gain the happy situation, to be insulated from the danger of power cuts and further increases in consumer tariff.

The PUCSL intervention to declare a BESS tariff will add a great impetus to those who are willing to adopt the above proposal. They will be encouraged to increase the capacity of their installations as well as the battery capacity so that the excess can be exported to the grid during peak hours, when firm economic power is most needed. Such additional features would enhance their financial returns and would enable rapid elimination of the use of diesel during peak hours. In recent months with the depreciation of the rupee, coupled with the increase of costs of solar panels, inverters and batteries, our original analysis of financial viability of this interevention was facing some uncertainties. As such, we welcome this move by the PUCSL, whereby the consumers would have a steady revenue in addition to the savings on their monthly electricity bills. It is likely that the level of FIT and the permitted number of exports will be adequate to work with the increased costs, as shown. (See Table 1)

It must be noted that the cost values are highly volatile ,and some variations are to be expected. FIT for export on energy is stated as 60% of the current peak time energy charge of Rs 106/kWh.

This revolution is well within the means of the over 200,000 potential “Prosumers” who consume over 250 units per month. While they would fulfil their own goal of being immune to any power cuts as well as being insulated from future tariff increases, they would be serving the country by progressively eliminating the need for any fossil fuels for power generation. For example, if 50,000 of them add 10 kWh of battery capacity, the peak power demand can be reduced by 500 MW, thereby obviating the need for using the most expensive diesel during the peak period. Very special advantages can be derived by those also purchasing EVs instead of petrol and diesel vehicles. It will be possible to save on LPG, which costs Rs 4,700.00 per cylinder at present. Thus, the excuse for demanding ever increasing consumer tariff in the future will not be available. As such this move would help all consumers down to the lowest level of consumers.

It is hoped that the energy authorities recognise this reality and support the PUCSL proposals by approving the BESS FIT system and directing all Utility companies to adopt the same and urgently initiate action to install the simple infrastructure additions to accept the BESS energy, as proposed. If they care to review this proposal having discarded biases and any other agendas, they, too, will benefit.

Conclusion

The inescapable conclusion one can derive from the above is that the solution to the crisis is available from the consumers themselves in a manner that is attractive and profitabe to them. It would also be of major assistance for the Utility to manage the sector effectively and efficiently. In addition, all consumers will benefit by gradually weaning themselves away from the grid an use of oil for power generation. This would obviate any more demands for consumer tariff increases by the National System Operator. The PUCSL has taken an essential first step with its intention to declare a BESS FIT. It is up to the government to ensure that the Ministry and the Utility companies adopt the correct stance and make a commitment to ensure the success of this scheme as soon as possible.

by Eng Parakrama Jayasinghe
Past President and Council Member
Bio Energy Association of Sri Lanka

Continue Reading

Trending