In the wake of the Ceylon Electricity Board (CEB) proposing a tariff increase of 13.56% for the second quarter of 2026, the Electricity Consumers’ Association (ECA) stated that most of the expenditure cited in the proposal is not directly relevant to consumers and therefore does not justify a price hike.
Speaking to The Daily Morning yesterday (15), ECA General Secretary, Sanjeewa Dhammika said that a closer examination of the proposal shows that a significant portion of the listed expenditure does not relate to costs that should be passed on to consumers. “In this proposal, most of what has been included as expenses are not relevant to consumers. Even voluntary retirement scheme-related payments have been counted. There is no genuine need for a tariff increase. What we are saying is that there should be some relief to consumers instead.”
He urged the Public Utilities Commission of Sri Lanka (PUCSL) not to approve the proposed increase, maintaining that consumers should not be made to shoulder financial burdens arising from poor planning and mismanagement within the CEB. “They always try to exploit consumers. Substandard coal imports are the latest example. Now they are apparently trying to recover the losses due to that by placing the burden on consumers. They always spend money without any proper plan, and finally consumers have to pay for all that.”
The CEB has estimated a deficit of Rs. 15,847 million for the period from April to June 2026 and has submitted a Board-approved tariff revision proposal to the PUCSL, seeking a 13.56% increase of tariffs. The utility stated the increase is necessary to ensure financial and operational stability and to mitigate potential risks to the reliability of electricity supply. It has also noted that any excess or shortfall in estimates would be adjusted through the Bulk Supply Transaction Account (BSTA) and considered at the next tariff revision.
The latest proposal comes after the CEB had earlier sought an 11.57% tariff increase for the first quarter of 2026 under the quarterly tariff revision mechanism. That proposal, however, was not approved by the PUCSL. The Commission stated at the time that a proper tariff revision proposal had not been submitted within the stipulated timeframe and therefore decided not to implement a revision. It subsequently informed the CEB to submit its proposal for the second quarter of 2026 before 13 February.