News
Electrify users demand more time for public consultations
By Anuradha Hiripitiyage
The Electricity Users’ Association (EUA) yesterday asked the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) two more weeks for public consultations on raising electricity tariffs.EUA Secretary Sanjeewa Dhammika told The Island that the time for public consultations ended on 18 July.
“However, this was a bad time for public consultation. There was no fuel and people can’t travel around. The Postal Department was hardly operational. People are hardly aware that a public consultation on raising electricity tariffs is taking place,” he said.
Dhammika said that most people, especially those who will be worst affected by an increase in electricity tariff, are in queues.
“Moreover, even interested civil society organisations or researchers are struggling to ascertain relevant data. So we urge the PUCSL to give us more time to comment on the proposed tariff hike,” he said.
The Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) has asked the PUCSL to approve an 82% increase in tariffs for the year 2022 under Section 30 of the Sri Lanka Electricity Act No. 20 of 2009. However, PUCSL has said the tariff increase should not exceed 57%.
“There are 3.14 million of household electricity consumers who consume less than 60 units per month. They account for about 50% of the total household electricity consumers. Therefore, the PUCSL has asked the government to provide a subsidy of Rs. 65 billion to those consumers. By providing this subsidy, the CEB will be able to avoid a large increase in tariffs for the category who consumes less than 60 units per month,” PUCSL chairman Janaka Ratnayake said.
Dhammika added that if the CEB proposal was approved, the average monthly electricity bill for those who consume less than 30 units would increase to Rs. 507. The average monthly bill for those who used over 30 units but less than 60 units, would increase to Rs. 1488, he added.
“The CEB is looking at an annual revenue of Rs. 512 billion through this tariff revision. However, we recommend that the tariff for a unit of electricity, on average, should not exceed Rs. 28.14. We also recommend that the CEB must reduce their operating costs by 10 percent by increasing its efficiency and use the savings to supply more renewable energy to the system,” he said.
The PUCSL said that in 2014, it had proposed a number of recommendations that would reduce the operating costs of the CEB significantly. They are the implementation of a proper agreements to generate and supply electricity from power plants owned by the Ceylon Electricity Board; the implementation of a proper agreement method for electricity transactions between the Transmission and Distribution Divisions (between licensees) of the Ceylon Electricity Board; the introduction of a proper system for keeping separate accounts for the financial activities of the various divisions of the Ceylon Electricity Board (Generation, Transmission and Distribution) and the determination of the subsidy requirements and the introduction of an independent audit system for the process of purchasing electricity.
News
Ambassador of the UAE to Sri Lanka meets with the Prime Minister
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
Latest News
Prime Minister joins Gandhi Jayanti Commemoration
[Prime Minister’s Media Division]
News
Unions resist tripartite EPF management plan
… warn of dire consequences
A group of trade unions and civil society groups has requested President Anura Kumara Dissanayake to abandon his government’s controversial plan for the proposed tripartite management of the EPF.
The group has told the President: “We strongly object to the government’s plan to transfer the EPF to a tripartite board—jointly promoted by the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO)—and to increase the investments of those funds within private equity and debt markets.
“While the EFC and the government jointly project this plan as a ‘modern governance framework’, it poses a serious threat to the EPF’s financial stability, fiduciary conduct, and returns to workers’ life savings, with severe consequences for broader macroeconomic stability. Rather than replacing the corruption existing in the public sector, this tripartite framework paves the way for a corporate takeover of the EPF. Through this, the fund is exposed to unlawful business practices such as insider trading using internal information of EPF investments, conflicts of interest and corporate bailouts of unstable private companies.
“Sri Lanka’s corporate sector has a tremendously negative track record, which you alluded to during your victorious election campaign in 2024. This was recently unravelled by the multi-billion-dollar illicit capital flight through trade misinvoicing, which your administration is now actively working to curb in the imports sector.
“The recent banking sector fraud exceeds Rs. 13 billion; widespread corporate tax evasion destabilised the fiscal position (Sri Lanka Auditor General’s Department Annual Reports) and consequently inflated the tax burden on the general public. The EFC has found it convenient to remain silent about these crimes, possibly assuming that their silence would preserve their social standing. Considering this inherent corruption within Sri Lanka’s corporate sector and its disregard to the living standards of the general public, there is no realistic basis to integrate corporate interests to actively manage the EPF. The corporate sector of Sri Lanka has not developed sufficiently on technical and ethical grounds to safely entrust the largest retirement savings pool in the country. The EPF is a captive fund that has no mechanism for the owners to divest if the management is corrupt. This further increases the possibility of corporate fraud when the management of the fund is jointly held with the corporate sector.
“Furthermore, during the recent public discussion with trade unions, Deputy Minister of Finance Dr. Anila Jayantha pointed out that the domestic debt restructuring (DDR) would inflict a loss of Rs. 600 billion to the EPF. Our independent calculations—formally submitted as an affidavit to the Supreme Court approved by the Federation of University Teachers’ Associations in 2024—reveal that nominal loss alone is Rs. 634.4 billion. When factoring in foreclosed reinvestment returns, the true loss skyrockets to Rs. 1,711 billion, wiping out 48% of the fund’s projected gross income for the 2023 – 2028 period. Under the pretext of safeguarding the banking system, this colossal robbery preserved high yields on government bonds held by commercial banks and high-net-worth individuals, subsequently reaping them astronomical profits. Now, the exact same plunder is rearing its head again disguised as a tripartite committee.”
“The main arguments supporting our resistance and viable alternatives for optimising EPF management directly under the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL), are outlined below.
“Objections to the government’s tripartite proposal:
1. The “International best practice and conflict of interest fallacies”
The government holds that tripartite management of pension funds is the “international best practice” and that there is a “conflict of interest” in CBSL managing the EPF. They are key pillars justifying government’s tripartite proposal.
These two positions are shockingly misleading given that four of the five largest pension funds in the world, in Norway, Japan, the U.S., and Singapore, are managed directly by state bodies or central banks. Therefore, ‘international best practice’ in pension fund management is the exact opposite of what the government and the IMF are proposing. We hence reject these baseless positions.
2. Corporate captivity and bailouts
It is clear that the EFC is desperately pushing for this proposal at a time of global uncertainty, to cushion the effects of the crisis and maximise gains. Under corporate influence within the proposed tripartite board, the private conglomerates can use the multi-trillion-rupee EPF to continue their unstable commercial operations without having to risk their own capital or savings to do so. This will severely erode the financial stability of the EPF and its returns.
3. Risk of front running
“Because the EPF is a colossal fund, its investment decisions can alter asset prices. This creates immense monetary value for the information generated by its investment decisions. Corporate representatives on the proposed tripartite board will be perfectly positioned to use this information to trade ahead of the EPF (front-running), buying assets cheaply and dumping them onto the EPF at inflated prices for guaranteed corporate gain, resulting in a reduction of returns to the EPF.
4. Unavoidable loopholes
“Presence of a separate group of investment analysts, trade union representatives and government officials within the proposed tripartite structure cannot prevent pre-market corporate access to EPF’s investment decisions. Investment proposals made by the analysts has to be first approved by the proposed tripartite committee, making it impossible to prevent corporate access to insider information on EPF investments.”
-
Editorial7 days agoBirth of a bad law
-
News5 days agoPolice remove Thileepan statue in Jaffna
-
News7 days agoTIN mandatory for key transactions from Nov. 1
-
Features5 days agoThe 22nd Amendment, constitutional recovery and illiberal slippage
-
Features5 days agoOf foreigners as CEOs of Lankan ventures
-
Latest News3 days agoGold winner Tharanga gets brand-new Honda Vezel from SLAAJ
-
News5 days agoSajith rejects Jt. Opp. protest sabotage claim; SJB TU chief demands remedial action
-
Features4 days agoThailand’s biggest new global star …
