This Rp815 billion program deserves to be tested through more than a fiscal lens. It must also be examined through the lens of a just energy transition.
The debate over electric stove conversion has once again sparked public discussion. Two recent reports by Tempo — Can Electric Stove Migration Reduce LPG Subsidies? and How to Ensure the Electric Stove Conversion Program Does Not Fail — have successfully captured the core concerns shared by many Indonesians.
These reports bring us to a fundamental question: Are electric stoves part of the energy transition, or merely a form of import substitution?
This is not a rhetorical question. It is a test that must be answered before a single rupiah of the Rp815.56 billion allocated for next year is spent. If the answer is the latter—and all early signs point in that direction—then what we are witnessing is a fiscal policy dressed up as an energy transition initiative.
The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) has designed the program around a straightforward argument: reducing LPG imports that drain foreign exchange reserves. As Energy Minister Bahlil Lahadalia stated during a working meeting with House Commission XII on June 15, 2026, imported LPG currently accounts for approximately 80 percent of national demand. The burden is substantial: around Rp130 trillion in annual foreign exchange spending, in addition to roughly Rp80 trillion in yearly subsidies.
The fiscal rationale is understandable. Reducing import dependency is a legitimate policy objective. But good intentions do not automatically translate into good policy.
Emissions Substitution, Not Emissions Reduction
A just energy transition has a specific meaning: moving from dirtier energy sources to cleaner ones while ensuring that no group disproportionately bears the costs of the transition. Transition does not simply mean replacing one dependency with another.
The reality is that more than half of PLN’s electricity generation still comes from coal-fired power plants. This means that every induction stove switched on today is still largely powered by fossil fuels. Moving from imported LPG to domestically generated coal-based electricity may improve Indonesia’s trade balance, but it does little to reduce emissions in any meaningful way.
This is not an energy transition. It is emissions substitution.
The claim that this program forms part of Indonesia’s clean energy agenda can only be justified if one critical element exists—something that remains absent today: a concrete, time-bound roadmap for decarbonizing the electricity sector. At what point will renewable energy make up a sufficient share of PLN’s grid for electric stoves to become genuinely cleaner than LPG?
Without a clear answer, the narrative of “electric stoves for energy transition” amounts to little more than policy marketing.
Will Foreign Exchange Really Be Saved?
The projected foreign exchange savings from this program must be assessed comprehensively, including costs that rarely appear in official government calculations.
Most low-income households currently have electricity connections of only 450 VA or 900 VA. Induction stoves, however, generally require at least 1,300 VA. If these households are targeted by the program, their electrical capacity must first be upgraded before the stoves can even be used.
If the cost of upgrading is not covered by the program, it becomes a direct burden on the beneficiaries—precisely those who are most economically vulnerable. If the government covers the upgrade costs, electricity subsidies may simply expand to replace the LPG subsidies the program seeks to reduce.
In either scenario, the promised savings deserve a more honest explanation: Savings for whom, and at whose expense?
Another group frequently overlooked in programs of this kind is mobile vendors and micro-enterprises that rely heavily on subsidized 3-kilogram LPG cylinders. For street food sellers, fried snack vendors, and small tent-based eateries, LPG is not merely a household fuel but a mobile production input.
For these businesses, induction stoves are not simply impractical because of limited access to electricity. Much of their existing cookware, including commonly used aluminum woks, is incompatible with induction technology. A program that fails to account for this segment from the outset is not merely ineffective—it risks undermining the livelihoods of precisely those groups most in need of policy support.
Those Missing from the Program Design
Two other groups remain consistently absent from the planning table, despite being among those most directly affected by cooking technologies.
The first is women.
In low-income and vulnerable households, women are typically the primary users of cooking appliances and therefore bear the direct consequences of changes in equipment, costs, and cooking practices. Yet the planning process for this program has not included consultation mechanisms specifically designed to capture their perspectives.
Women-headed households in fishing communities, urban low-income neighborhoods, and women operating micro-enterprises that depend on cooking as part of their production process are among the most affected stakeholders—and among the least heard. A just transition requires that they be treated not as passive recipients of distributed equipment, but as active participants in policy design.
The second group is persons with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or have mobility impairments.
Many modern induction stoves rely on touchscreen interfaces without physical buttons, audio feedback, or adequate tactile markers. For blind users, this is not merely an inconvenience—it is a matter of safety and independence in carrying out one of the most basic daily activities.
The ability to cook independently is a matter of dignity. A program that distributes stoves without minimum accessibility standards does more than fail to serve persons with disabilities; it actively excludes them from the benefits of a public policy financed by all taxpayers.
GEDSI principles—Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion—should not be decorative language in policy documents. In the context of an electric stove program, they should function as technical procurement requirements. Accessibility standards must be mandatory specifications, not optional features. Likewise, consultation processes must proactively engage women and persons with disabilities rather than expecting them to participate in forums that were never designed for them.
Learning from the Failure of the 2022 Electric Stove Program
Before moving forward, there is an unresolved accountability gap.
Indonesia’s 2022 electric stove conversion program was ultimately canceled following widespread public opposition. Yet to this day, the public has never received a complete account of what happened. How much funding was spent? How was procurement conducted? Was the program audited, and what were the findings?
The cancellation of a program does not eliminate the obligation for public accountability.
The failure of the 2022 initiative was not merely the result of poor communication or unexpected public resistance. It was a systemic failure. The program was designed without meaningful consultation with intended beneficiaries, without an honest assessment of infrastructure readiness, and without mechanisms to adjust course once public concerns began to emerge.
Community resistance was treated as a communications challenge rather than valuable policy feedback.
Launching a new Rp815 billion program without first resolving the accountability questions surrounding its predecessor sets a troubling governance precedent. Any audit findings from the 2022 program should serve as a mandatory reference before a single new stove is distributed.
Ensuring It Does Not Become a New Face of Old Inequalities
Publish What You Pay (PWYP) Indonesia does not oppose the program’s objectives. Reducing dependence on imported LPG is a legitimate policy goal. Addressing poorly targeted subsidies is both necessary and overdue.
However, public spending that lacks transparency, programs that fail to be inclusive, and policies developed without meaningful participation from those most affected will simply reproduce old injustices under a new label. Billions of rupiah may be spent in the name of clean energy and fiscal efficiency, yet the underlying pattern remains unchanged: the powerful decide, while the vulnerable bear the consequences.
The electric stove program could become a meaningful step forward. But that will only happen if it is built upon transparent and auditable procurement processes, substantive community consultation, inclusive design that accommodates persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, and the willingness to answer the most fundamental question of all:
Who is this energy transition really for?
Originally published on Indonesiana.id.