“For vulnerable groups, the impact could be disproportionate. Think of an elderly couple living on a pension, a single parent juggling expenses, or a rural family using the bare minimum of electricity. A uniform increase across the board treats them the same as heavy consumers, which is neither fair nor humane. A more just approach would shield low-usage households through lifeline tariffs or targeted subsidies, while asking those who consume more to bear a higher share.
The ripple effect will also touch small businesses. Whether it is a workshop, a tailoring unit, a cybercafé, or a guesthouse, higher electricity bills translate into thinner margins.”
Diwali is a time when homes in Goa glow with lamps and lights, when streets feel alive with colour, and when families look forward to a few days of brightness in their lives. This year, however, the sparkle has been dimmed by a different kind of light — the one that comes with a higher price tag. From October onwards, electricity tariffs in Goa are set to rise by an average of four per cent each year for the next five years.
For many households, this is nothing less than a rude jolt. Electricity is no longer a luxury one can do without. It runs the fans that cut the heat, the fridges that keep food safe, the internet connections that keep children learning and parents working, and for many, even the stoves on which food is cooked. During Diwali, when homes traditionally put up decorative lights, the irony is particularly bitter. Families will have to count every extra bulb, every extra string of lights, not because they don’t want to celebrate, but because the bill will sting.
The authorities have defended the hike as a necessity. They argue that it will help the sector recover its costs, reduce losses and fund much-needed upgrades. No one disputes the importance of improving Goa’s electricity infrastructure. Outages, ageing lines and dependence on power from outside the state are well-known challenges. But the key question is: why must the consumer always be the first to pay, even before inefficiencies in the system are fixed?
The announcement itself leaves much to be desired. People have been told that the average increase is four percent, but an “average” hides more than it reveals. How will a small household that uses little power be affected? How much more will a farmer pumping water for crops have to pay? What about the corner shop or the home-run business already fighting rising costs? Without clear, category-wise details, citizens are left anxious and uncertain.
Equally troubling is the lack of accountability. Power providers have for years struggled with transmission losses, theft, and poor efficiency. These problems cannot be brushed aside as inevitable. Before demanding more from the consumer, the system must show that it has cut waste, improved collection, and fixed its own house. Raising tariffs without clear evidence of such improvements feels unfair — it turns the consumer into an easy target rather than a valued stakeholder.
For vulnerable groups, the impact could be disproportionate. Think of an elderly couple living on a pension, a single parent juggling expenses, or a rural family using the bare minimum of electricity. A uniform increase across the board treats them the same as heavy consumers, which is neither fair nor humane. A more just approach would shield low-usage households through lifeline tariffs or targeted subsidies, while asking those who consume more to bear a higher share.
The ripple effect will also touch small businesses. Whether it is a workshop, a tailoring unit, a cybercafé, or a guesthouse, higher electricity bills translate into thinner margins. For many, this could mean cutting jobs, reducing services, or passing the cost on to customers. In a state where small enterprises form the backbone of the economy, this is no small concern.
The larger issue is one of trust. Regulators are meant to balance sustainability with the public interest. That means not only making technical decisions but also listening to people. Was there enough consultation? Were citizens given a clear picture of why the hike is unavoidable and how the money will be used? If the process feels top-down and opaque, it breeds resentment rather than cooperation.
Goans are not asking for free electricity. What they want is fairness. They want to know that if they are asked to pay more, it is because the system is becoming more efficient, more reliable, and more accountable. They want to see improvements in service, not just a bigger number on their bills.
As families prepare to light diyas this Diwali, many will do so with mixed feelings. The celebration of light will still happen, but behind it lingers the uneasy thought that the glow in their homes is getting costlier. A festival that symbolises hope should not be overshadowed by the dread of the next bill.
