KOCHI: The latest controversy over power procurement in Kerala raises a question that should not arise in the first place: how can the Chief Minister, the Electricity Minister and the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) arrive at different conclusions on which of the two power suppliers is more economical for the state?
While Chief Minister VD Satheesan has defended the decision to procure power through GNA, arguing that its offer is cheaper, the Electricity Minister and KSEB, under former chairman and managing director M G Rajamanickam, reportedly favoured the Himachal Pradesh arrangement.
KSEB's assessment, presented to the government, argued that the GNA option could cost more once the additional purchases required to meet peak-hour demand were factored in.
The latest episode is not an isolated instance. Kerala's power sector has seen several important decisions generate conflicting interpretations and unanswered questions, even when the underlying developments are documented and supposed to be unambiguous
The disagreement over the two power offers is not simply about the tariff quoted by the suppliers. It concerns the quantity of electricity available, the hours during which it is supplied, Kerala's actual demand pattern and the additional purchases that may be required going forward.
Satheesan has cited GNA's lower tariff and higher overall energy supply to defend the choice. KSEB's reported assessment, on the other hand, says the Himachal offer better matches the state's peak-hour requirements and that round-the-clock procurement through GNA could mean paying for power during hours when Kerala has surplus solar generation.
Opposition demand
The opposition has questioned the government's decision and demanded that the details of the proposal submitted by KSEB be made public.
The Electricity Minister's reported support for the Board's assessment has added another dimension to the issue. The government is entitled to take a decision different from the recommendation of its utility.
But when the assessments differ so sharply, the assumptions and calculations behind the final decision need to be explained. Otherwise, consumers are left trying to make sense of competing claims without access to the full picture.
465 MW long-term PPA
This is not the first time that a major power-sector decision has left people confused about what actually happened. The controversy over the 465 MW long-term power purchase agreements, signed in 2014, is a case in point.
Even today, different versions circulate about who cancelled the contracts — the UDF government, the LDF government or the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (KSERC). The actual sequence of events, however, is on record.
The four agreements, signed in 2014 during the UDF government's tenure, were meant to secure 465 MW of power for 25 years. On May 10, 2023, KSERC rejected KSEB's request for approval, citing procedural and tender-related violations.
The LDF government subsequently intervened, invoking Section 108 of the Electricity Act and asking the Commission to reconsider its decision. KSERC later permitted KSEB to resume purchases under the agreements in December 2023. That order, however, was subsequently set aside in legal proceedings, and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld the Commission's original rejection in February 2025.
The sequence is therefore more complicated than saying that one government or the regulator alone cancelled the agreements. The UDF-era contracts, the Commission's rejection, the LDF government's intervention, the Commission's review and the subsequent legal decisions are separate developments.
Yet, the shorthand versions continue to circulate. When the decisions and orders are available, should it be so difficult to establish what happened and where the matter stands?
KSEB pension scheme
The much-discussed KSEB pension scheme presents another set of unanswered questions, this time with potentially far-reaching implications for employees and pensioners.
The KSEB Employees' Pension Master Trust was registered in February 2015 as part of the restructuring of the Board. It was intended to ensure that pension and terminal benefits would be paid independently of the financial position of KSEB Ltd. The Trust became operational from April 2017.
More than a decade after its registration so many questions keep popping up: How financially secure is the Trust? How much money does it actually hold? Are the funds due to it being transferred regularly? Is its corpus sufficient to meet future pension and terminal-benefit obligations? And can the scheme continue smoothly for years without depending on KSEB's financial health?
These are not merely technical questions. They concern the financial security of thousands of employees and pensioners. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) has flagged the non-release of Rs26,401.16 crore to the Master Trust, observing that the Trust could not build an adequate investment base to meet pension and terminal benefits independently of KSEB's financial position.
The observation raises questions about whether the original objective of the Trust has been achieved.
In discussions with people in the government, senior trade union leaders and pensioners who are the direct beneficiaries of the scheme, a clear picture of the Trust's present financial position has been difficult to obtain.
That does not establish that pension payments are in danger. But a scheme of this importance should not remain difficult for its own stakeholders to understand. Its latest accounts, corpus, liabilities, funding arrangements and long-term sustainability need to be clearly disclosed.
The three episodes — the latest power-purchase dispute, the 465 MW contracts and the pension Master Trust — point to a larger issue in Kerala's power sector.
Major decisions are taken, documents are prepared and regulatory orders are issued. Yet, the public is often left with competing versions of what happened, uncertainty over the present position and unanswered questions about the financial consequences.
KSEB is not an ordinary commercial entity. Its decisions affect electricity consumers, public finances, employees and pensioners. The government, the regulator and the Board have different responsibilities and may legitimately disagree on policy or commercial choices.
But such differences should be supported by transparent reasoning, documented calculations and clear communication.
The issue, therefore, goes beyond whether GNA or Himachal was the better power-purchase option, who was responsible for the fate of the 465 MW contracts or whether the pension Trust has enough funds.
It is about why clarity remains elusive on decisions that should be possible to explain through records and facts. When public money and an essential service are involved, leaving more questions than answers should not become a recurring feature of the system.
