‘A step towards backdoor privatisation’: Why power engineers want Electricity Amendment Bill 2025 withdrawn

Raising serious concerns about consumer interests, the federal structure, and the future of public-sector power utilities, the All India Power Engineers Federation (AIPEF) Monday strongly opposed the Electricity Amendment Bill, 2025, terming it a step towards backdoor privatisation of the power sector. The objections were placed during an online meeting convened by the Ministry of Power, Government of India, to hear the views of engineers’ and employees’ organisations on the draft Bill.

The meeting, held Monday evening, was chaired by Pankaj Agarwal, Secretary, Ministry of Power. National-level engineers’ and employees’ federations and state-level power associations that had submitted objections to the Bill were invited for the discussion. AIPEF was represented by Shailendra Dubey, Chairman; P Ratnakar Rao, Secretary General; and Padamjit Singh, Chief Patron. Other federations, such as EEFI and AIFEE, as well as power engineers’ associations and unions from various states, also participated.

AIPEF stated that the proposed Electricity Amendment Bill, 2025, would severely harm public sector DISCOMs (distribution companies ), adversely impact poor and middle-class consumers, farmers, and weaken the authority of state governments. All participants in the meeting unanimously demanded the withdrawal of the Bill in its entirety.

A major objection raised was against the provision allowing multiple distribution licences in the same area. AIPEF strongly opposed granting distribution licences to private companies using the existing public infrastructure—substations, lines, and transformers—created over decades through public investment by state-owned DISCOMs.

The Federation warned that private licensees would selectively serve high-revenue commercial and industrial consumers, leaving government DISCOMs with domestic and agricultural consumers, thereby increasing their financial losses.

AIPEF cautioned that parallel licensing would complicate power purchase planning, energy accounting, billing, and consumer grievance redressal. Consumers would face confusion over service responsibility, complaint handling, and accountability. The Federation opposed provisions that would allow private companies to earn profits by exploiting public infrastructure without corresponding investment.

Citing practical experience, AIPEF pointed out that power privatisation in Delhi has failed to provide competition or consumer choice since 2002, with no real alternatives between TATA Power and BSES even after more than two decades. Similarly, the introduction of multiple licences in Mumbai led to disputes and prolonged court cases between private players such as TATA and Adani, causing hardship to consumers rather than benefits.

AIPEF also strongly opposed provisions related to the elimination of cross-subsidies and subsidies within five years, stating that this would lead to sharp increases in electricity tariffs for domestic and agricultural consumers. Poor consumers, the Federation warned, may be unable to afford electricity, defeating the objective of universal access.

The Federation objected to clauses allowing easier removal of State Electricity Regulatory Commission members, terming it an attack on regulatory independence. Strong opposition was also expressed to the proposed Electricity Council, chaired by the Union Power Minister, which AIPEF said would centralise policy decisions and undermine the constitutional authority of states in the power sector.

AIPEF described the Bill as a clear move towards privatisation of electricity distribution, which would severely affect both consumers and employees. It was noted that farmers’ organisations have already opposed the Electricity Amendment Bill during their agitations against farm laws. The Federation also referred to the analysis submitted by the PRAYAS group, which raised serious concerns over network sharing provisions that need to be addressed.

The Federation pointed out that the Government of India is attempting to pass the Electricity Amendment Bill for the fifth time between 2014 and 2025. While the Bill sets standards of performance for consumer services, it does not address the manpower requirements needed to achieve those standards, AIPEF observed.

Concluding the meeting, Er. Shailendra Dubey, Chairman, AIPEF, urged the Government of India to withdraw the Electricity Amendment Bill, 2025, in toto and unconditionally. He emphasised that any development in the power sector can be effectively achieved through public utilities and that reliable and affordable power supply to all categories of consumers is best ensured by state-owned DISCOMs.

Padamjit Singh, Chief Patron, and Ratnakar Rao, Secretary General, AIPEF, reiterated that allowing multiple licences in distribution would jeopardise the interests of consumers and employees, and asserted that the present Bill must be withdrawn in the larger public interest.