The Power Protest Paradox

Odisha’s experience with power sector reforms, including the entry of Tata Power, should be evaluated not just through the lens of monthly bills but in terms of long-term service quality, sustainability and accountability, suggests Priyabrat Biswal

For several months now, Odisha has witnessed recurring protests against Tata Power, which took over electricity distribution in the state in 2020 through a joint venture with the Odisha government. Demonstrations, rallies and gheraos have largely revolved around three core allegations: inflated electricity bills, forcible installation of smart meters, and the demand for Additional Security Deposit (ASD). These grievances have found resonance among many consumers already grappling with rising household expenses. Yet, while public anger is understandable, the debate around power distribution in Odisha deserves a calmer, more analytical examination rather than a reaction driven solely by outrage.

At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of Tata Power’s role in Odisha. The company does not operate as an unfettered private monopoly. The power distribution business functions under a joint venture model in which the Odisha government holds a substantial 49 per cent stake. This structure automatically limits Tata Power’s unilateral decision-making authority. Any major policy decision — whether related to tariffs, deposits or operational practices — inevitably involves the state government’s concurrence. Therefore, to portray Tata Power as a standalone corporate entity imposing arbitrary decisions oversimplifies a far more complex governance framework.

One of the most visible triggers of discontent has been the perceived escalation in electricity bills. Many consumers compare their current bills with those from a decade ago and conclude that something must be fundamentally wrong. However, such comparisons often ignore a critical variable: the dramatic change in consumption patterns over the years. Ten years ago, appliances such as air conditioners, multiple televisions, microwave ovens, induction cooktops, water heaters and an array of digital devices were considered luxuries for many households. Today, they have become near-essentials, especially in urban and semi-urban Odisha. Add to this the rise of work-from-home culture, increased screen time and higher dependence on electrical appliances, and the surge in consumption becomes almost inevitable.

Higher consumption naturally translates into higher bills. Compounding this is the periodic increase in electricity tariffs. It is important to note that tariffs are not fixed by distribution companies. In Odisha, as in other states, the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC) is the statutory authority responsible for determining power tariffs. Tariff revisions are based on multiple factors, including fuel costs, power purchase expenses, infrastructure investments and broader economic considerations. Blaming Tata Power or any distribution company for tariff hikes ignores the regulatory process that governs pricing in the electricity sector.

The issue of Additional Security Deposit has perhaps generated the most confusion and resentment. For many consumers, ASD appeared suddenly, reinforcing the perception of an arbitrary and burdensome demand. In reality, the provision for ASD has existed in OERC guidelines long before Tata Power assumed responsibility for distribution in Odisha. The key difference is that previous distribution companies did not implement these guidelines strictly or uniformly. Tata Power’s insistence on enforcing ASD is therefore less a policy innovation and more an attempt at regulatory compliance.

That said, the manner of implementation matters as much as the policy itself. Expecting consumers to deposit a lump sum ASD can indeed strain household finances, especially for lower- and middle-income families. Here, Tata Power has room for improvement. Offering flexible options—such as payment in equated monthly instalments or charging interest on the unpaid differential amount — would go a long way in easing consumer anxiety. Crucially, the interest rate charged should be aligned with the rate that the company itself pays on consumer security deposits. Such measures would reinforce the perception of fairness and shared responsibility.

Smart meters represent another flashpoint in the ongoing protests. Many consumers view them with suspicion, fearing inflated readings, remote disconnections and loss of control over their electricity usage. However, it is essential to recognise that the push for smart metering is a central government initiative, aligned with national goals of modernising power distribution, reducing losses and improving billing accuracy. Tata Power’s role in this context is largely that of an implementation agency, executing a policy decision taken at a much higher level.

Resistance to new technology is hardly unique to Odisha. Historically, technological transitions — from electronic meters to online billing—have often been met with scepticism. The real challenge lies not in the technology itself but in building trust around its adoption. This is where distribution companies must step up. Large-scale awareness campaigns explaining how smart meters work, what safeguards are in place, and how consumers can monitor their usage in real time are essential.

One constructive suggestion is the installation of smart meters alongside existing conventional meters for a trial period. If consumers are billed based on whichever meter shows the lower reading during this phase, it would significantly reduce apprehension. If smart meters are indeed accurate and transparent, there should be little to fear from such a parallel arrangement. Confidence, once built, can smooth the transition far more effectively than coercion.

Amidst the noise of protests, one significant development risks being overlooked: the marked improvement in the quality and reliability of power supply since Tata Power’s entry into Odisha’s distribution sector. Frequent power cuts, voltage fluctuations and prolonged outages were once routine complaints. Today, while issues have not vanished entirely, there is a noticeable enhancement in supply stability and duration across many regions. Improved infrastructure, better maintenance practices and investments in distribution networks have contributed to this change.

Paradoxically, better and more reliable electricity supply often leads to higher consumption. When power is available consistently, households naturally use appliances more freely, without the constant fear of outages. This, in turn, reflects in higher bills. In that sense, rising electricity costs are not solely a symptom of inefficiency or exploitation; they are also a by-product of improved service delivery.

None of this is to suggest that consumer grievances should be dismissed or minimised. Transparency in billing, responsiveness to complaints and sensitivity to financial constraints are non-negotiable in a public utility service. Tata Power, the state government and regulatory authorities must collectively engage with consumers, address genuine errors swiftly and communicate policies clearly. Protest, after all, is a democratic right. But protest without dialogue risks hardening positions rather than resolving problems.

Equally, consumers must recognise that electricity distribution is a complex ecosystem shaped by regulatory mandates, consumption behaviour, infrastructure costs and technological transitions. Simplistic narratives of corporate profiteering may offer emotional satisfaction, but they rarely capture the full picture.

The way forward lies in informed engagement rather than confrontation. Structured discussions involving consumer groups, regulators, the state government and Tata Power could help demystify contentious issues and evolve mutually acceptable solutions. Flexibility in ASD payments, transparent smart meter rollouts and consistent public communication can restore trust.

In the end, reliable electricity is the foundation of modern life and economic growth. Odisha’s experience with power sector reforms, including the entry of Tata Power, should be evaluated not just through the lens of monthly bills but in terms of long-term service quality, sustainability and accountability. Only then can the debate move beyond anger towards understanding — and ultimately, resolution.