The NPP Government’s proposed electricity policy has raised serious concerns, not just among opposition politicians but among ordinary citizens and those invested in the country’s renewable energy future. The policy appears to shift financial burdens onto consumers, penalise low-income households and weaken confidence in renewable energy at a time when diversification and resilience should be national priorities.

Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa has articulated what many are already feeling. Charging consumers for street lighting, proposing a time use tariff that places a single unit at an eye watering Rs. 67, and altering the way solar power producers are compensated are measures that feel detached from economic reality. For households already struggling with food prices, transport costs, and rent, electricity is not a luxury. It is an essential service.

The proposal to charge citizens for street lamps is particularly troubling. Street lighting is a basic public good tied directly to safety, mobility, and law and order. If communities resist paying these additional charges, the likely outcome will be darker streets and greater vulnerability, especially for women, children and shift workers. This is not a theoretical risk. It is a predictable social consequence of a policy that treats public infrastructure as an item to be offloaded onto citizens.

Equally worrying is the impact on renewable energy, especially rooftop solar. The suggestion that payments for solar generators should be based on units consumed by the user during daytime represents a fundamental shift in incentives. Thousands of households and small businesses invested in solar under earlier policies promoted by the State itself. 

Changing the rules without broad consultation damages trust and discourages future investment. Any such proposal should be subjected to transparent public discussion, not introduced through technical adjustments that ordinary consumers struggle to understand.

This leads to a more fundamental question. Was there adequate public consultation before these proposals were put forward. Electricity policy affects every household and every business. Yet there is little evidence of a serious, inclusive dialogue with consumers, industry experts, renewable energy stakeholders or civil society. Decisions of this magnitude should not be made behind closed doors or justified only through balance sheets.

There is also a pattern that deserves scrutiny. Successive Governments and the Ceylon Electricity Board appear reluctant to fully embrace decentralised renewable energy. Whether through tariff structures, grid access limitations or shifting payment mechanisms, the message to solar and other renewable investors has been either mixed or discouraging. This stands in stark contrast to global trends, where energy independence and diversification are increasingly seen as matters of national security.

The international context makes this all the more urgent. Global energy supply chains are under constant strain. Tensions involving Iran, instability in the Red Sea driven by Houthi attacks, and unilateral actions by major powers such as the United States against countries like Venezuela all highlight how quickly energy markets can be disrupted. These shocks may not be of Sri Lanka’s making, but their effects will be felt here through price volatility and supply risks. 

In such a world, building sovereign energy capacity is not optional. It is essential.

Renewable energy offers Sri Lanka a path to greater resilience. Solar, wind and other renewables reduce dependence on imported fuel, cushion the economy against external shocks and align with climate commitments. Undermining this sector through poorly communicated policies is not just economically short sighted. It is reckless.

There is also a political dimension that cannot be ignored. The current Government promised a 33% reduction in electricity prices. What the public is now confronted with is an increase of 11.57%. This gap between promise and policy fuels public anger and deepens mistrust. Walking back commitments while asking citizens to shoulder new costs is a recipe for social and political backlash.

What is needed now is not deflection or dismissal of criticism, but transparency, consultation, and course correction. Electricity policy should be shaped through open dialogue, clear data and a genuine commitment to protecting vulnerable communities. Long-term national security considerations, particularly energy resilience, must be placed above short-term financial fixes.

The people are not rejecting reform. They are rejecting unfairness, opacity and broken promises. An electricity policy that punishes consumers, sidelines renewables and ignores public input is not reform. It is a failure of governance that must be addressed before lasting damage is done.