As Jammu and Kashmir moves toward a projected winter power demand of nearly 7 gigawatts by 2030, the conversation around energy remains narrowly focused on scarcity. Policymakers and planners point to rising demand, limited generation, and the inevitability of winter shortages.
This framing, while not entirely incorrect, misses the deeper and more uncomfortable truth: the region’s power crisis is as much about systemic inefficiencies and structural constraints as it is about supply.
At its core, the crisis is defined by two interlinked deficits. The first is internal, rooted in transmission and distribution losses. The second is external, shaped by how much of the power generated within the region is actually available for its own consumption.
The scale of internal inefficiency is staggering. Transmission and distribution losses in Jammu and Kashmir have historically hovered between 40 and 50 percent. In practical terms, this means that out of every 100 units of electricity generated or procured, only about 50 to 60 units reach consumers. The rest is lost through technical inefficiencies, outdated infrastructure, and, in some cases, theft.
This is not merely a statistical concern. In a future where winter demand touches 7 gigawatts, such losses effectively push the requirement up to 10 or even 12 gigawatts. By contrast, if losses were brought down to a more manageable 15 to 20 percent, the effective demand would fall closer to 8 gigawatts. The difference is not trivial. It represents the gap between a manageable challenge and a chronic crisis.
What makes this situation particularly troubling is that these losses are not inevitable. They are the result of systemic shortcomings that can be addressed through governance, technology, and accountability. Experiences from other parts of India offer clear lessons.
In Delhi, the adoption of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition systems, real-time monitoring, and theft detection mechanisms led to a significant reduction in losses.
In Andhra Pradesh, a model based on feeder-level accountability, rigorous monitoring of supply, billing, and collection, and regular administrative oversight reduced losses from over 35 percent to around 15 percent while achieving near-total collection efficiency.
These examples demonstrate that losses are not a fixed feature of the power sector. They are a policy outcome.
Alongside these internal inefficiencies lies a more structural concern. Jammu and Kashmir is rich in hydropower potential, yet a significant portion of its generation capacity is developed and operated by external entities under long-term agreements. Over time, this has created a paradoxical situation where a resource-rich region continues to depend on external procurement, especially during peak winter months.
Broader Imbalance
The issue here is not about questioning individual agreements but about recognizing a broader imbalance. When locally generated power is not fully retained for local consumption, the region’s energy security becomes structurally constrained. There is also growing unease that newer agreements may not sufficiently prioritize local needs, potentially perpetuating this dependence into the future.
The burden of this dual deficit ultimately falls on consumers. Households and businesses pay higher tariffs, not only because of rising procurement costs but also because inefficiencies within the system inflate the overall expense.
For the industry, this translates into reduced competitiveness, discouraging investment, and limiting economic growth. In effect, consumers are paying twice: once for the power they use, and again for the power that never reaches them.
Technical shortcomings further compound the problem. A low power factor, often around 0.8 compared to the ideal 1.0, indicates inefficiencies in how electricity is utilized. The lack of adequate capacitor installations, along with the underutilization of grid improvement schemes, adds to system losses and increases operational costs. These are not high-level policy dilemmas but basic engineering and management issues that demand attention.
Yet, the dominant policy response continues to emphasize capacity addition. While increasing generation is important, it cannot, on its own, resolve the crisis. Without addressing losses and structural imbalances, any new capacity will be partially absorbed by the same inefficiencies that plague the system today.
What is needed is a reframing of the debate. Instead of asking only how much more power can be generated, the more urgent questions should be: why is nearly half of the available power lost before it reaches consumers, and why is a region with abundant resources unable to fully utilize its own generation?
A credible path forward must address both dimensions simultaneously.
First, internal reforms must be pursued with urgency. Reducing transmission and distribution losses through technological upgrades, full metering, and strict accountability mechanisms should be a top priority. Investments in grid modernization and efficiency improvements can yield immediate and substantial gains.
Second, there must be a careful review of power allocation frameworks. Ensuring that a fair share of locally generated electricity is available for local consumption is essential for long-term energy security. Future agreements must be aligned with the region’s needs, balancing external investment with internal priorities.
Jammu and Kashmir’s power crisis is not simply a story of inadequate supply. It is a reflection of power lost within the system and power not fully retained within the region. Addressing only one aspect will not be enough.
The real solution lies in ensuring that the electricity we generate is both efficiently delivered and equitably available to the people it is meant to serve.
Have you liked the news article?