Connect with us

Features

What PUCSL and CEB did not disclose

Published

on

Electricity subsidies, surcharges, and rooftop solar units:

by Dr Tilak Siyambalapitiya

The Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) altered the CEB’s proposed prices and price structure, then amended its own proposal, and announced higher electricity prices, to be effective from 10 August 2022. Neither the CEB nor the PUCSL presented, to customers, the actual cost of supplying electricity to them; they simply pulled figures from their respective hats and called them ‘proposed tariffs’ and ‘alternative proposals’ and, finally, the ‘approved tariffs’. At the end, all the proposals, and approved prices of electricity, appear to have no basis.

For example, if the so-called ‘safety net’ is laid to subsidise low-user households, how much will the subsidy cost? Who will bear the cost of that subsidy? These questions need answers.

If there is a seemingly free market for any commodity or service, there is no need for customers to know the production costs, delivery costs, wastage, etc. Electricity is not so, yet; it is a regulated market, a badly regulated one at that, here in Sri Lanka, with no signs of improvement. Even in countries where there is an electricity ‘market’, the customer has a very limited choice. Low-user, low-income customers have no choice, at all.

Back to Sri Lanka, the only stated basis of pricing is to collect the forecast cost of Rs 510 billion by selling the forecast 15,772 million units of electricity in 2022. However, the cost of supplying electricity, to any customer, is not 510/15.8 = 32.28 Rs per unit of electricity. Customers are of three types: retail customers, low-voltage-bulk customers or medium-voltage-bulk customers. In simpler terms, if your electricity supply is from the roadside line, then you are a retail customer. If you have a transformer at your property; you have paid for it, but you are not required to maintain it, then you are a low-voltage bulk customer. If you have a transformer substation within your premises, you are a medium-voltage bulk customer. There are clearer, more serious definitions for these three types of customers.

All customers must pay a fixed cost in proportion to the burden they impose on the grid when they consume electricity. However, electricity producers are not required to pay any fixed costs for the use of the grid because (a) customers pay such costs, (b) producers are paid the cost of production. Producers who can guarantee on-demand supply to the grid are paid a fixed cost, based on the availability of their power plant. Additionally, all are paid a variable cost, based on energy output.

Getting back to the 10 August customer price increase, the PUCSL announced that there would be no government subsidies this year. Therefore, funds for subsidies for some customers, if any, have to be earned by overcharging other customers. The PUCSL also announced that low-user households will have a ‘safety net’; that means a ‘life-line tariff’ in the profession of energy economics, which the PUCSL is yet to learn. Be that as it may, a closer examination of the prices announced show the following (see the table):

A negative sign means the customer is charged above the cost of supplying electricity to that group of customers. It is cheaper to supply electricity to bulk customers, as in any business. When electricity is sold in bulk, there is no need for a distribution network and a distribution loss to allow for, just as when a trader sells potatoes, or onions, in bulk. Alas, the CEB and the PUCSL think (but do not calculate) that the cost of supplying electricity, to all customers, is the same; this is wrong. Our larger industries, large commercial and office buildings, as well as hotels, are being called upon to pay between 13% and 19% more than what it costs to supply them. The smaller bulk customers, numbering 12,000 are the hardest hit. They pay 19% more than the cost.

Where does this subsidy go to?

It goes to many retail customers, more specifically to smaller industries, religious customers, to households using up to 180 units per month, and to subsidize households numbering 40,000 who have rooftop solar units. Subsidy to rooftops? What? Yes, a subsidy goes to rooftop solar unit holders.

Subsidy to small user households is 67% of the costs. Small industries enjoy a subsidy up to 42%. Religious customers enjoy a 20% subsidy. No wonder why some temples and churches do not switch off their garden lights at all. So, when all put together, in essence, subsidy receivers are about 6.6 million customers.

Rooftop Solar Units

The households, with rooftop solar units, are latest addition to subsidy recipients. In the night they consume. In the day, they produce. So, the consumption at night should be paid for just like any other customer. Production during the day must be separately compensated by paying for that production. Buy, you pay: produce, you are paid.

Assuming a household, with a rooftop solar, unit draws 300 units from the grid per month, it should pay a calculated fixed cost of Rs 3,240 per month. Now, the PUCSL has said they, too, would pay the minimum fixed charge, which is Rs 120 per month, the same rate paid by a low-user household which finds it hard to make ends meet and uses only 30 units of electricity per month. The collective amount of subsidy given to rooftop solar unit users, by charging them a poor-man’s fixed charge alone, is Rs 1,500 million per year, which is adequate to subsidise one million households of lowest-user category, if the government so desires!

A free market for electricity?

What is required is a free market for electricity producers in which, once connected to the grid, any person can buy or sell electricity measured through two-way meters. In the same sense, customers can go off-grid, and request the CEB or the LECO to cut off your supply permanently. There are many who ‘think’ but not ‘calculate’, electricity can be produced cheaper at home or the factory. There is no legal barrier at all for such persons to ask for a voluntary, permanent disconnection from the grid.

Sri Lanka’s national average costs of electricity, this year, are Rs 1,400 per month per customer (fixed cost), plus Rs 22 per unit of energy costs. In an ideal market, after paying the fixed cost (because they are consumers), any person can join the ‘market’ and sell below Rs 22 if the customer has a cheaper source, and buy at Rs 22, if the customer has no cheaper source to produce electricity.

The emergence of a free market for electricity may take several years to come, or may never be a reality, if all customers eternally ask for subsidies, and producers eternally ask for preferential rates, and the CEB, the LECO and the PUCSL are not transparent as regards who subsidises whom.

Samurdhi and IRD, all in one

Customers, producers, governments (and the Opposition, too) and even some economists continue to consider, and act, as if electricity pricing calculations (by the CEB and the LECO) and approvals (by the PUCSL) had to be done to partially do the jobs of (a) the Samurdhi Authority (delivering social subsidies), (b) Inland Revenue Department (taxing the rich) and now (c) the Tourism Development Authority (subsidising hotels to tide over during the current crisis). Such unquantified ‘short-circuiting’ of funds will continue to aggravate the woes of the electricity industry, providing the electricity suppliers and ministers an eternal avenue for excuses for why the industry is making financial losses.

There is no harm in using the electricity bill to deliver subsidies, as allowed in the Electricity Act 2009 and the Energy Policy (2019), provided the CEB and the LECO promptly invoice the Treasury for the subsidy at the end of the month; the PUCSL facilitates the process, and the Treasury promptly pays the invoice, leaving no excuses for the CEB to report losses, at year end.

What is happening at present? The amount of subsidy, or surcharge, in the bill is not known, and the Treasury is not invoiced. Then, after years of reporting losses, the Treasury says: “We will pay a portion of your outstanding fuel bill of power plants, directly to the CPC!”

Fancy speeches, in Parliament, serve no purpose unless this 30-year-old problem is clearly identified, professionally quantified, treated and resolved, once and for all. Then demand performance from electricity suppliers!



Features

Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka

Published

on

World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future

by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?

These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.

World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.

We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.

Making more of what we already have

Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.

Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.

The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.

Stop wasting the food we produce

Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.

Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.

Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.

Nutrition and food safety come first

Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.

Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.

Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.

A food system that can cope with climate change

Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.

Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.

Give young people a bigger role

Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.

A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.

A pathway designed for Sri Lanka

We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.

The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.

The choices we make today

The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.

So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?

The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.

A better food future begins with the choices we make today.

Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna

Continue Reading

Features

20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried

Published

on

Aftermath of the terror attack

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.

It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.

By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.

I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.

When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.

The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.

The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24

I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.

The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.

The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.

After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.

Clark

The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.

Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.

Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.

He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.

Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.

Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.

Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.

Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.

So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.

Continue Reading

Trending