Kerala Chief Minister V D Satheesan has defended the state’s decision to buy electricity from GNA Energy, saying an alternative proposal routed through Himachal Pradesh would have cost Kerala an additional ₹2,232 crore. The dispute centres on the price, volume and peak-hour availability of power procured to manage a supply shortfall in the state.
Speaking at a post-cabinet press conference, Satheesan said the power minister had forwarded two proposals. Himachal Pradesh Power Trading Corporation Ltd (HPPCL), through Power Trading Corporation of India Ltd (PTC), offered electricity at ₹14.50 per unit. GNA’s offer was priced at ₹8.63 and ₹8.90 per unit.
Satheesan said the Himachal proposal was not a direct government-to-government arrangement because PTC is a power trading company and would also charge a margin. He said GNA’s offer had come through an open platform. “Can the govt buy electricity at an additional cost of Rs 6 per unit merely because the proposal is projected as coming from a govt?” he asked.
According to the chief minister, GNA would supply 1,812 million units by the end of March, compared with 843 million units under the Himachal proposal. He also disputed reports that the Himachal option would have provided more electricity during peak demand hours, defined in the statement as 6 pm to midnight. Satheesan said GNA would supply 453 million units during those hours, against 353 million units from Himachal.
He said the cost difference became particularly significant during peak hours. Assuming an average regulatory ceiling of ₹6 per unit, the additional liability would be ₹2.60 per unit under the GNA arrangement and ₹8.50 per unit under the Himachal proposal, according to the figures he cited.
The chief minister also rejected reports that the GNA deal had caused a ₹722 crore loss. Citing a KSEB report, he said buying power from Himachal above the ceiling would have created an additional cost of ₹722.91 crore between October and December and ₹1,510.43 crore up to May. Together, he said, the additional liability would have reached ₹2,232.34 crore.
Satheesan denied that the KSEB chairman had been transferred for opposing a more expensive procurement decision. He said the electricity board had sent both proposals to him because he was responsible for securing power at the lowest rate, and that no one had instructed the government not to proceed with GNA.
The dispute has also exposed the operational pressures behind Kerala’s current power purchases. Satheesan said the previous Left Democratic Front government had bought power from GNA in 2025 and alleged that, during its tenure, KSEB had procured mostly from private companies including Jindal, Adani and Tata Power, with limited purchases from NTPC.
He attributed part of the present shortage to the failure to anticipate demand and secure long-term agreements. A 500 MW power swap had to be returned in June and July, he said, while poor rainfall left the state short of electricity. Consumption had increased by nearly 1,000 MW in September, according to the chief minister, who also described the swap as imprudent in view of the possible impact of an El Niño event.
