Our Rivers, Our Electricity, Our Bills.

 

Our Rivers, Our Electricity, Our Bills.

 “The latest tariff hike brings back the larger debate over affordability, power sector reform and J&K’s share of its hydropower wealth.”

Peerzada Mohsin Shafi

T

here is something deeply uncomfortable about another electricity tariff hike in Jammu and Kashmir. This is a place where rivers tumble down from the mountains, ambitious hydropower projects are being built and electricity has long been presented as one of J&K's greatest natural advantages. Yet the story reaching the ordinary consumer remains familiar that the power sector runs a deficit, the government provides support and the consumer is asked to pay more. From 1^st September 2026, electricity tariffs in J&K are set to rise by an average 6.83 percent. For 2026-27, the revenue requirement of JPDCL and KPDCL has been assessed at roughly ₹10,276 crore against revenue of about ₹7,353 crore at existing tariffs, leaving a gap of approximately ₹2,923 crore. The government has committed around ₹2,421 crore in support, leaving roughly ₹502 crore to be recovered through the tariff revision. Had the entire deficit been passed on to consumers, the increase could have approached 40 percent. While the subsidy reduces the immediate burden on consumers, it does not address the underlying financial weaknesses of the power sector or explain why consumers should continue to bear the cost of a system that remains structurally inefficient.

But it cannot be the end of the debate. A tariff hike can raise revenue. It cannot by itself repair a financially weak distribution system, eliminate power theft, reduce technical losses, improve collection or make expensive power procurement cheaper. If these problems continue, today's tariff increase will only postpone tomorrow's deficit. The real question is therefore simple that what will consumers get in return for paying more? Government support to JPDCL and KPDCL should increasingly be linked to measurable performance including lower distribution losses, better collection efficiency, greater reliability and more efficient procurement. Smart meters and feeder level monitoring should produce measurable results, not merely installation figures. Every rupee of public support should either make the system more efficient or protect the consumer more effectively.

This becomes particularly important when we revisit the promise of 200 free units. During the 2024 Assembly election campaign, the government promised 200 units of free electricity for every household, irrespective of social category. After coming to power, however, the promise was narrowed to around 2.23 lakh Antyodaya Anna Yojana families and linked to a rooftop solar scheme. The irony is that this rooftop solar scheme is itself a Central Government initiative. J&K has roughly 20 lakh domestic consumers based on recent available figures. If 20 lakh is taken as a working assumption, 200 units a month valued at ₹2.45 per unit would represent approximately ₹1,176 crore annually. This is only an illustrative calculation, not an official costing because the actual liability would depend on eligibility, consumption and tariff slabs. Even so, the comparison is striking. The present tariff revision is expected to recover around ₹502 crore while the illustrative value of 200 free units for all domestic consumers would be around ₹1,200 crore.

This does not mean the government could simply spend ₹1,200 crore and make electricity free. Public finance does not work that way. But it does show that choices exist. The larger question is whether that money should merely bridge an annual gap or whether part of it can protect vulnerable consumers while the rest is tied to reforms that reduce the gap itself. Subsidies have a role, but they should be targeted and transparent rather than becoming a permanent substitute for efficiency. There is another question J&K cannot avoid that what does our hydropower wealth mean for the ordinary electricity consumer? For decades, the people of J&K have been told that despite having enormous hydropower potential, the Union Territory remains energy deficient because many of the major projects are developed and owned by the Central Government or central-sector entities, while J&K’s share of the electricity generated is limited. That may explain part of the structural reality, but it cannot be the end of the conversation. The ordinary consumer has little control over who owns a project, how its power is allocated or how electricity is procured. A family paying its electricity bill cannot be expected to solve an institutional problem created by decades of power-sector arrangements. If J&K does not receive enough of the electricity or economic value generated from projects located within its territory, then the responsibility lies with the government to negotiate better terms, strengthen J&K’s generation capacity, improve its share and make the best possible use of the benefits it does receive.

Perhaps it is time to stop telling consumers why J&K is energy deficient and start telling them what the government is doing to change that reality. The common man cannot change the ownership structure of hydropower projects; the government can. The common man cannot renegotiate power-sharing arrangements; the government can. The common man cannot redesign the distribution system; the government must. The burden of fixing this structural imbalance cannot simply be transferred to consumers through higher tariffs.

Moreover, it is time to think of hydropower not merely in megawatts but as a public dividend. The comparison with neighbouring states also raises questions about policy choices. While J&K has approved an average 6.83 percent tariff increase for 2026–27, Punjab has reduced domestic tariffs, Himachal Pradesh has marginally reduced energy charges and Haryana has kept tariffs unchanged. The comparison does not erase J&K's own financial constraints, but it does show that tariff policy is ultimately a matter of choices as well as costs.

Further communities that host major hydro power projects should not merely bear the physical and environmental realities of development; they should also share in its economic benefits. This matters especially in District Kishtwar, where the risks are not simply a matter of speculation. The District Disaster Management Authority’s Glacial Lake Outburst Flood Risk Management Plan for 2024–25 records 197 glacial lakes in the district, accounting for 36.08 percent of all glacial lakes in J&K and highlights the vulnerability of the upper Chenab basin to glacial and other mountain hazards. This is the landscape that is giving its rivers and mountains to a massive hydropower push. The people living here are being asked to accept the disruption, the uncertainty and the risks that come with developing such a fragile Himalayan region. After all this sacrifice, what should they reasonably expect in return? Surely not simply another increase in their electricity bills. If Chenab area bears the risks while its rivers generate power for the wider system, then its people must also share meaningfully in the benefits. Development cannot mean that the mountains and communities bear the burden while the benefits flow elsewhere. When people are asked to sacrifice for development but are denied a fair share of its benefits, it ceases to be a question of economics alone. It becomes a question of humanity.

Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether electricity should be free or whether consumers should pay. It is a debate about fairness. If our rivers are being harnessed, our mountains are being developed, our communities are carrying the risks and our people are being asked to pay more for electricity, then the people of J&K should not merely inherit the bills; they should inherit a meaningful share of the benefits. The answer cannot be to keep explaining why J&K is energy deficient while asking its people to shoulder more of the burden. The answer must be a power sector that delivers reliable electricity, protects vulnerable consumers and ensures that the wealth generated by our rivers creates lasting value for the people who call these mountains home. A tariff hike can plug a hole. It cannot repair a leaking system. Our rivers should generate more than electricity; they should generate dignity, opportunity and a dividend for the people of J&K. If development demands sacrifice from the people, justice demands that its benefits reach them too.