Published Nov 04, 2026 | 1:58 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 04, 2026 | 1:58 PM
Keralam Chief Minister VD Satheesan.
Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan on Wednesday defended the Congress-led UDF government’s decision to procure electricity from private company GNA, claiming the agreement would save the state an additional financial burden of ₹2,232 crore compared with purchasing power from Himachal Pradesh.
His clarification comes amid Opposition allegations of corruption in the power deal and claims that former KSEB chairman M.G. Rajamanickam was removed to facilitate the agreement.
Speaking at a press conference after a Cabinet meeting, Satheesan said the government had two proposals before it: one to purchase electricity from Himachal Pradesh at ₹14.50 per unit and another to procure power from GNA at ₹8.63 to ₹8.90 per unit.
The latter deal is being facilitated through the Power Trading Corporation and is not a direct transaction with the government, he clarified.
The chief minister said the Himachal Pradesh arrangement would have provided 353 mega-units during peak hours, while the GNA agreement would ensure 453 mega-units.
The decision to opt for GNA was taken to avoid the additional financial liability, he said.
Rejecting the Opposition’s allegations linking the KSEB chairman’s replacement to the power deal, Satheesan described the reshuffle as a routine administrative exercise.
Several senior officials had also been transferred, he said.
He further pointed out that the LDF government had also purchased electricity from private companies, including GNA, in 2025.
Electricity had been procured from companies such as Jindal and Adani as well, he said, adding that KSEB continued to source a major share of its power from private players.
Satheesan also said neither the Electricity Minister nor the KSEB chairman had raised objections to the GNA agreement.
He questioned the Opposition’s criticism, pointing out that private intermediaries were involved even in the proposed Himachal Pradesh power purchase.
The chief minister maintained that the decision was based on cost and availability of power, dismissing allegations that the agreement was intended to benefit a private company.
(Edited by Fayisa CA)
