The Ministry of Energy (Power Division) on Thursday strongly refuted a media report claiming that the government planned to increase fixed electricity charges to discourage industrial consumers from shifting to solar energy, terming the assertion “factually incorrect and misleading.”
In a statement issued here, the Power Division clarified that no proposal had been shared with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) aimed at penalizing industrial consumers for using less than their sanctioned loads or for adopting solar and other off-grid energy solutions.
It said the report was based on a misunderstanding of an optional tariff framework currently under consideration.
The claim made by the author of the story titled “New Power Tariff to Deter Solar Shift”, stating that the government has shared a plan with the IMF to substantially increase fixed charges on electricity bills in order to “punish” industrial consumers who use less than their sanctioned loads or have shifted to solar and other off-grid sources, is factually incorrect and misleading.
Prior to the publication of the article, the author contacted the relevant spokesperson and was explicitly informed that the proposed tariff regime under consideration is “optional”, not mandatory. Unfortunately, this critical clarification has not been accurately reflected in the published report.
The proposed tariff structure is based on a different cost allocation mechanism, featuring relatively higher fixed charges coupled with lower variable energy charges differentiated across various time periods, including solar generation hours and night-time hours. The objective is to provide consumers with an alternative tariff option that may better align with their operational and consumption patterns.
Industrial consumers will have the freedom to choose whether to opt for this alternative tariff regime or remain on the existing tariff structure. There is no compulsion for any consumer to switch.
Furthermore, the proposed tariff design is intended to benefit process industries and other consumers operating on a 24/7 basis with high utilization factors and stable demand profiles. Such consumers may find the alternative tariff structure more economical and predictable.
Any industrial consumer who determines that the proposed tariff does not suit its operational requirements can simply continue under the existing tariff regime without any adverse consequences. Therefore, the characterization that industrial consumers would be “punished for using less than their sanctioned load or for adopting solar generation is entirely unfounded and represents the author’s interpretation rather than the actual policy proposal.
Public discourse on energy sector reforms should be guided by accurate facts and technical understanding.
Mischaracterizing an optional tariff offering as a punitive measure against solar adoption risks creating unnecessary confusion among consumers and stakeholders.