The energy sector has once again drifted into uncomfortable territory. Amid persistent allegations surrounding coal imports for the Lakvijaya Coal Power Plant in Norochcholai, the Government has appointed a seven-member expert committee to evaluate the methodology used in supplying coal. On paper, this is a welcome move. In reality, it must become much more than a procedural response.
The committee, chaired by Prof. W.D.A.S. Rodrigo of the University of Moratuwa, brings together expertise from electrical, mechanical, chemical, and process engineering disciplines. Its mandate is significant. It is tasked with examining technical discrepancies in coal testing, calculating associated losses, reviewing technical concerns flagged in reports, and determining whether inconsistencies arose during shipment or handling. It will also ensure that appropriate penalties are applied where required.
Such technical scrutiny is essential. Coal procurement is not a matter of routine logistics. It directly affects plant efficiency, maintenance costs, electricity tariffs, and ultimately national energy security. When questions arise about coal quality, they ripple far beyond a single shipment or supplier. They touch the stability of the grid and public confidence in governance.
At the Cabinet media briefing, Cabinet Spokesperson Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa sought to reassure the public. He explained that shipments are inspected at the loading port by accredited laboratories, with coal above 5,900 kcal/kg accepted and anything below rejected. Coal within the 5,900 to 6,100 kcal/kg band attracts penalties according to established procedures.
The figures cited were striking. Ten ships have arrived so far, eight fully unloaded. Penalties were imposed on six shipments. The first cargo of 59,831 metric tonnes reportedly incurred a penalty of $ 2.07 million. Subsequent penalties ranged between approximately $ 345,000 and $ 510,000 per shipment.
On one level, this disclosure demonstrates that testing mechanisms are functioning. Penalties are being levied. Quality thresholds are being enforced. Yet this is precisely where the unease deepens.
If penalties are repeatedly applied across multiple shipments, the public is entitled to ask several uncomfortable questions. Why did these consignments pass initial procurement filters? Were the specifications sufficiently tight? Did contractual safeguards adequately protect national interests? More importantly, what has been the cumulative operational impact of burning coal that required penalties?
These questions cannot be brushed aside with assurances of transparency. Transparency is not merely stating that procedures exist. It is demonstrating, with clarity and evidence, that those procedures are robust, consistently applied, and capable of preventing systemic losses.
In the meantime, the Ceylon Electricity Board has already reported losses approaching Rs. 8 billion linked to reduced generation at Norochcholai due to coal quality related issues. That is not a trivial accounting matter. It represents lost efficiency, increased fuel costs, and potential pressure on consumer tariffs. In a country where electricity pricing remains politically and socially sensitive, such losses carry consequences.
What everyone must remember is that our recent history offers a sobering lesson. Energy disruptions, fuel shortages, and power cuts have previously contributed to public anger, economic strain, and political instability. Governments may change, but the memory of how quickly energy insecurity can erode confidence remains fresh.
Energy security is not simply about keeping the lights on today. It is about convincing the public that the systems underpinning supply are competent, accountable, and insulated from avoidable missteps. When controversies linger without decisive clarification, uncertainty becomes corrosive.
The newly appointed expert committee therefore carries a burden that is not only technical but institutional. Its findings must be made public. Its conclusions must be intelligible to citizens, not confined to technical jargon. If discrepancies are identified, responsibility must be clearly assigned. If losses are quantified, corrective measures must be outlined.
Equally, if the Government maintains that no irregularities occurred, that claim must be substantiated with documentary evidence, testing data, and procurement records. Credibility does not rest on denial or reassurance, but on demonstrable proof.
Now that the Government has taken a step by appointing experts, their next step should be urgency. The country does not need prolonged technical deliberations followed by delayed disclosure. It needs timely answers, clear accountability, and visible reforms where necessary.
In the end, this is not only about coal shipments or calorific values. It is about governance, trust, and the assurance that lessons from recent crises have truly been learned.