Despite smart meter installations, Kashmir consumers face revised winter power cuts of up to 8 hours in rural and 3 hours in urban areas, sparking doubt over the benefits of the reform.
Kashmir’s electricity consumers are once again preparing for long hours of scheduled power cuts as the Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Limited (KPDCL) rolls out its revised load curtailment plan. Rural areas facing up to eight hours of daily outages and urban areas experiencing cuts of up to three hours raise an uncomfortable question: what tangible improvement have smart meters brought to the lives of ordinary consumers if the power supply schedule remains largely unchanged? The installation of smart meters was projected as a major step towards reforming the power sector. Consumers were told that improved monitoring, accurate billing, better revenue collection and the reduction of electricity losses would help strengthen the system. Yet, as winter approaches, households across the Valley continue to worry about electricity availability, heating requirements and the rising cost of living. If the introduction of smart meters has not translated into a more reliable supply, the government and the power distribution authorities owe the public a convincing explanation. Smart meters, in themselves, do not generate electricity or increase the availability of power. Their purpose is to measure consumption more accurately, facilitate timely billing, improve monitoring and help distribution companies identify losses and unauthorised use. These are important objectives. However, their success cannot be judged merely by counting the number of meters installed. The real test lies in whether the investment has improved the overall quality of electricity services. Under KPDCL’s revised plan, areas with aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses exceeding 65 per cent will face eight hours of daily curtailment. Those with losses between 40.5 and 65 per cent will experience six hours of cuts, while areas with lower losses will receive relatively better supply. Consumers in Srinagar city will face scheduled outages ranging from half an hour to three hours, depending on the feeder. The differentiation based on losses may have an administrative rationale, but it also raises questions of fairness and accountability. Why should residents of an area continue to endure prolonged outages because the distribution network records high losses? Many consumers pay their bills regularly but remain dependent on the same unreliable supply. They should not be made to bear a disproportionate burden for inefficiencies that may also arise from inadequate infrastructure, poor enforcement, faulty distribution systems and weaknesses in revenue collection. If electricity losses are high, the department must identify their causes and address them. Theft, unauthorised connections, defective infrastructure and poor billing practices require targeted action. Merely imposing longer power cuts on entire localities does not resolve these problems. Nor should consumers who comply with billing requirements be left wondering why their cooperation has not brought a visible improvement in service. The expansion of round-the-clock supply to 214 feeders, from 129 under the previous plan, is a welcome development. However, the number alone does not establish whether consumers are actually receiving uninterrupted electricity. The department must disclose how consistently these feeders maintain supply and whether the promised service is being delivered on the ground. A designation of 24×7 supply should represent a measurable commitment, not merely a category in an official document. The same principle applies to smart metering. If consumers are expected to accept digital monitoring, more transparent billing and stricter enforcement, they are entitled to demand corresponding accountability from the utility. The department should publish clear data on the number of smart meters installed, changes in AT&C losses, improvements in billing and collection efficiency, and the actual hours of electricity supplied before and after installation. Without such information, it is difficult for the public to assess whether the investment is delivering the promised benefits. There is also a broader question about the relationship between billing reforms and electricity availability. Better revenue collection can improve the financial position of distribution companies, but it does not automatically guarantee adequate power procurement, stronger transmission infrastructure or a more resilient distribution network. These require coordinated planning, investment and management. The government must explain how the gains from metering and improved collections are being translated into better services.
“While smart meters and strict billing improve the power sector’s financial health, reforms are ultimately judged by service quality. Consumers complying with new metering expectations deserve reliable power, transparent outage updates, and better infrastructure rather than endless power cuts. Would you like me to tailor this summary into specific bullet points, an executive briefing format, or adapt it for a presentation deck?”
Winter makes this question particularly urgent in Kashmir. Electricity is not merely a convenience in a region where temperatures can fall sharply and households depend on heating appliances to remain comfortable. Students preparing for examinations, patients requiring essential care, small businesses and people working from home are all affected by prolonged outages. Rural households, in particular, may face greater difficulties when long power cuts coincide with harsh weather and limited alternatives. The Government must therefore move beyond treating the publication of a curtailment schedule as an adequate response to the electricity crisis. Consumers need predictable supply, timely information about outages and effective grievance redressal. The authorities should also review whether areas with high losses can be provided relief through targeted enforcement, infrastructure upgrades and time-bound reduction plans rather than relying indefinitely on prolonged curtailment. There is no argument against smart meters or efforts to improve the financial health of the power sector. A system in which electricity is accurately measured, honestly billed and properly paid for benefits everyone. But reforms must be judged by their outcomes, not by the technology deployed or the administrative orders issued. Ultimately, the question is simple: if consumers are paying for electricity, accepting smart meters and complying with billing requirements, what meaningful improvement are they receiving in return? The government cannot expect public cooperation to remain unquestioned while long power cuts continue to define everyday life. Smart meters may help the department count every unit consumed. The public, however, has the right to ask a different question: when will these reforms begin to count in terms of reliable electricity supply? Until that question is answered with measurable improvements, the promise of power-sector reform will remain incomplete.
