THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The ongoing controversy surrounding the power purchase deal and the abrupt removal of former KSEB Chairman M.G. Rajamanickam has sparked intense debate over state finances and electricity management. While claims were made that Kerala would secure 864 MW to 1280 MW of power during peak hours, official documents from the Himachal Pradesh Board tell a different story.
Uncertain Supply Schedule
According to the proposal documents submitted by the Himachal Pradesh Board under the “Supply Period and Duration (Hrs)” clause:
“Upto 1300 MW from various sources of GOHP share of power (as per generation profile to be informed on Day ahead basis) from November 26 to May 27. For the months November 26 to May 26 (As per generation pattern).”
This clearly establishes that the exact quantum of power available will only be disclosed on a day-ahead basis. Critics point out that when the supplier itself lacks clarity on guaranteed availability, relying on vague projections is a major oversight.
Chief Minister’s Scrutiny & Note from Former Chairman
When the file reached the Chief Minister’s office, queries were raised regarding peak-hour supply:
“With respect to the proposal submitted by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the requisite details pertaining to power provided during the Peak Hours of 1800 hours to 2300 hours are not seen.”
In response, the former KSEB Chairman submitted a note detailing the expected average supply during the critical 18:30–22:30 hours:
- November 2026: 719 MW
- December 2026: 402 MW
- January 2027: 213 MW
- February 2027: 193 MW
- March 2027: 378 MW
- April 2027: 991 MW
- May 2027: 324 MW
Severe Shortfall & Potential Financial Loss
The data reveals that during the crucial months of December, January, February, and March, the actual average peak supply drops well below 500 MW.
To bridge this 500 MW deficit during peak non-solar hours, KSEB will be forced to purchase additional power from the open market at exorbitant spot market rates. For instance, procuring 300 MW for just 4 hours at ₹10 per unit in January alone would cost around ₹36 crore. Extending this extra procurement across December, February, and March (with November being the only month with surplus supply) exposes the state to an additional financial liability expected to exceed ₹500 crore.
