Rethinking energy sustainability in Sri Lanka
MANEKA JAYASINGHE, SELVA SELVANATHAN AND SAROJA SELVANATHAN |
When we think about energy poverty, we often picture households struggling to keep the lights on or afford heating and cooking. But what if the inability to afford transport is just as significant—and just as damaging to people’s wellbeing?
New research from Griffith University is challenging conventional thinking by revealing that energy vulnerability extends beyond the home. For many households, the cost of travelling to work, school, healthcare and other essential services creates an additional burden that compounds financial hardship.
Using Sri Lanka as a case study, the research introduces a new way of measuring this challenge through the Double Energy Vulnerability Index (DEVI). Rather than examining domestic and transport energy separately, the index considers how these two forms of energy disadvantage interact, providing a more complete picture of household vulnerability.
The findings are striking. Based on national household survey data, around 42.6 per cent of Sri Lankan households were found to experience both domestic energy poverty and transport-related energy poverty simultaneously. In other words, almost half the population faced difficulties not only in accessing affordable energy at home but also in maintaining the mobility needed to participate fully in society.
This matters because transport is fundamental to everyday life. Rising fuel prices can force households to make difficult choices between paying for electricity, cooking fuel or essential travel. These trade-offs can reduce access to employment, education and healthcare, while increasing social isolation and limiting opportunities to improve quality of life. Yet transport has largely been overlooked in energy poverty research and policy, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.
The research also highlights how global shocks can intensify these vulnerabilities. Sri Lanka’s economic and energy crisis demonstrated how rapidly rising fuel and energy prices can push millions more people into hardship, with modelling suggesting that an additional 2.88 million people may have become double energy vulnerable during the crisis.
Importantly, the study goes beyond identifying the problem. It provides a practical methodology for measuring double energy vulnerability in countries where detailed energy datasets are often unavailable. By making innovative use of existing household survey data, the researchers demonstrate that robust evidence can still be generated to inform policy and investment decisions.
The implications extend well beyond Sri Lanka. As climate change, energy transitions and global price volatility continue to reshape economies, governments need a more holistic understanding of energy disadvantage. Policies focused solely on household electricity access risk overlooking the transport challenges that prevent people from reaching jobs, education, healthcare and other essential services.
Ultimately, achieving a just and sustainable energy transition means recognising that energy supports every aspect of daily life—not only within the home, but also through the mobility that connects people to opportunity. By broadening how we define and measure energy poverty, this research offers policymakers a stronger foundation for designing more equitable climate, energy and transport policies that leave no one behind.
AUTHORS
Maneka Jayasinghe is from Charles Darwin University; Selva and Saroja Selvanathan are members of the Griffith Asia Institute.
This article is a synopsis of the journal article: Maneka Jayasinghe, E.A. Selvanathan, Saroja Selvanathan, An investigation into double energy vulnerability in Sri Lanka: An exploratory study, Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 138, 2026.