Home Login Watch Videos Wars

[🇧🇩] Energy Security of Bangladesh

[🇧🇩] Energy Security of Bangladesh
514
17K
More threads by Saif

G Bangladesh Defense

How energy insecurity and climate vulnerability converge in Bangladesh

26 January 2026, 01:01 AM

By Raida A. K. Reza

1769477115504.webp

FILE VISUAL: Anwar Sohel

Conversations around energy transitions are typically focused on swift transitions, with solar panels appearing overnight on rooftops, wind farms sprouting across landscapes like mushrooms after rain. The reality, particularly for developing nations navigating complex economic pressures, tells a different story.

And for Bangladesh, a country that simultaneously grapples with climate vulnerability and economic transition, clean energy isn’t just an environmental aspiration, but a necessity that could redefine the industrial future.

Picture this: nearly 666 million people globally still live without reliable electricity, with over 85 percent concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa. And while the entire population in Bangladesh is said to have access to the grid, “access” is not the same as reliability. Frequent power cuts and a heavy reliance on expensive, imported fuels make the system fragile.

While the lights are mostly on, heating energy is where the real crisis resides. Less than 30 percent of Bangladeshi households have access to clean cooking fuels like gas or electricity. Most still rely on wood or crop waste, creating indoor smoke that is a leading cause of early death in the country. This “energy poverty” isn’t just an inconvenience, but a significant health hazard to a substantial portion of the population.

However, Bangladesh suffers not only from a lack of energy access, but is also one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations. According to the World Bank, tropical cyclones already cost the country about $1 billion every year. If sea levels rise by just 27 cm by 2050 (which is a very real possibility), the southern coast could lose nearly 18 percent of its farmland, plunging the country into a severe food crisis.

Every new coal or gas plant built today adds to this risk of exacerbating climate change. The irony is that Bangladesh produces very little of the world’s pollution, yet it pays one of the highest prices.

Transitioning to clean energy isn’t just about “being green,” but also about stopping the cycle of damage that drains billions from the economy. Bangladesh’s economy relies heavily on exports, with around 85 percent of its export earnings coming from the readymade garment industry. To grow further into leather, jute, and food processing, the country needs massive amounts of energy. Modern manufacturing is energy-intensive. The RMG sector requires reliable, affordable electricity for every stage of production, from spinning yarn to running sewing machines to powering climate-controlled warehouses. Leather processing demands substantial energy for tanning and finishing. Food processing and cold chain logistics are energy voracious. If Bangladesh hopes to expand and diversify its industrial base, it must solve the energy equation.

Currently, the country is stuck in an “import trap.” About 65 percent of the country’s power depends on imported fossil fuels like liquefied natural gas (LNG) and coal. In 2025 alone, the cost of importing LNG jumped to nearly $3.9 billion. So, when global fuel prices spike because of wars or supply chains, Bangladeshi factories suffer.

Clean energy offers an alternative pathway. By using sunlight and renewable resources, Bangladesh can harness energy domestically, reducing import dependence and price volatility.

Consider the RMG sector specifically. Factories powered by rooftop solar installations coupled with energy-efficient machinery don’t just reduce carbon footprints, they lower operating costs and enhance competitiveness in international markets where there is an increasing demand for sustainable production. European and US buyers are implementing stringent environmental standards and factories powered by clean energy gain market access advantages.

Yet, the painful reality is that Bangladesh needs this transition at a time when it can least afford it financially.

The numbers paint a sobering picture. The country has already allocated $15.7 billion for interest payments alone in fiscal year 2024-25, nearly one-fifth of the total budget. As Bangladesh graduates from Least Developed Country (LDC) status, it faces higher borrowing costs as well as reduced access to concessional financing. Tax revenues remain constrained by a narrow tax base. Development financing is becoming increasingly scarce as global crises, such as wars, pandemics, and other emergencies, dominate international attention and resources.

Climate adaptation and mitigation programmes require substantial funding through bilateral and multilateral sources. But the current geopolitical landscape doesn’t prioritise climate action when conflicts rage and economic uncertainties loom. This makes financing for clean energy much harder to find.

To make the jump to clean energy, Bangladesh needs to frame these projects not as “costs,” but as “investments.” Every dollar spent on a solar farm today is a dollar not spent on expensive foreign oil tomorrow.

Renewable energy projects create construction and operations jobs. Reduced fuel imports improve trade balances. Lower energy costs enhance industrial competitiveness. Energy access in rural areas unlocks economic opportunities previously constrained by darkness.

Renewable sources are abundant, emit minimal greenhouse gases, and offer energy sovereignty. To stay stable, Bangladesh must move away from fossil fuels. Bangladesh has a goal: to have 40 percent renewable energy in its energy mix by 2041.

The International Day of Clean Energy, observed on January 26 is also the founding date of the International Renewable Energy Agency, and it serves as more than ceremonial recognition. It’s a call to action for just and inclusive energy transitions that benefit both people and planet.

For Bangladesh, this day should prompt reflection on uncomfortable truths. Economic stability cannot be built on unstable energy foundations. Industrial diversification cannot succeed without reliable, affordable power. Climate adaptation cannot happen while simultaneously expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure that accelerates climate catastrophe.

Progress is taking place. Renewable energy capacity in developing countries has grown from 155 watts per capita in 2015 to 341 watts less than a decade later. But Bangladesh, along with the global community, remains off-track in terms of achieving Sustainable Development Goal 7, which calls for universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy by 2030.

Of course, change takes time. The export diversification Bangladesh is seeking won’t be achieved overnight. The clean energy transition requires patient, sustained policy interventions and investments. But the foundation must be laid now, even amid fiscal constraints and global uncertainties.

The incoming government faces a momentous choice: continue down a path of energy vulnerability and climate risk or embrace clean energy as the cornerstone of economic stability, industrial competitiveness, and climate resilience. The former threatens continued instability. The latter offers a fighting chance at a sustainable future.

For a nation that has survived cyclones, floods, and countless other challenges through resilience and ingenuity, the clean energy transition represents not a burden but an opportunity. An opportunity to power industries with the sun, to build stability on renewable foundations, and to demonstrate that climate vulnerability can catalyse climate leadership.

The question isn’t whether Bangladesh can afford this transition, but whether it can afford not to pursue it.

Raida A. K. Reza is doctoral researcher at United Nations University’s Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES), Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER), and Technische Universität Dresden.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Highlight Cite Fact Check Respond

Firm stance needed on unfair Adani power deal

FE
Published :
Jan 27, 2026 23:35
Updated :
Jan 27, 2026 23:35

1769561387763.webp


The National Review Committee formed by the interim government to look into the suspected anomalies in the power purchase agreements (PPAs) struck with the Indian Adani Power Ltd and some local independent power generation companies during the Awami League-led autocratic regime has come up with evidences of widespread irregularities and corruption. The contracts were awarded without any competitive bidding but by orders from the then-prime minister's office. So, the power tariffs fixed by the supplier companies were excessive and against the interest of Bangladesh. Especially, the 25-year PPA with Adani power Ltd, that started supplying power to Bangladesh since 2023, has been found to be unfair and graft-ridden, the Committee reportedly told journalists at a recently-held press briefing. The evidences of such irregularities and graft were learnt to be amply supported by bank records, transaction dates, foreign travel documents of the government high-ups, to name but a few of the instances.

The power supply contract inked with Adani Power Ltd during the autocratic regime has proved to be an albatross around the neck of the government. In fact, Bangladesh has to pay the company excess charges between US$450 and US$500 million annually. The fallout from this deal is that over the contract's lifetime, an aggregate sum of US$10 billion will be due to the Indian power supplier. The worse part of the PPAs including the one cut with Adani is that, as pointed out by the Committee, those (PPAs) were indemnified by a special law, styled, 'Quick Enhancement of Electricity and Energy Supply (Special Provision) Act 2010. The law in question was scrapped by the interim government in November last year.

Obviously, the Committee suggested that the government should seek compensation from the Adani Group or cancel the contract before the contract is affirmed. Notably, the contract is so structured that it has allowed Adani to profit from the entire supply chain, including mining in Australia, port handling and transportation of coal to the Godda power plant at Jharkhand in India and so on that ultimately passed all the costs unfairly to the Bangladeshi consumers. The power pricing formula is also heavily skewed against Bangladesh as the costs (charged by Adani) are significantly higher than the power supplied by the coal-fired power plants in Bangladesh. So far as tax issues are concerned, under the contract, Adani has included Indian excise duties and taxes in the tariff paid by Bangladesh, which are definitely unfair. Add to that the later instance of withholding certain tax benefits from the Godda plant, which was, evidently, egregious as it was done in breach of the original PPA. However, the PDB's approach to settle the issues directly with Adani was, reportedly, spurned by the latter, who on the contrary, was in favour of appointing a mediator. Clearly, the suggestion implied that instead of direct talks, the Indian power supplier was rather interested in engaging in a legal battle at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. No doubt, that would not only be a time-consuming affair, but also involved the risk of paying huge penalties at the arbitration. In that case, what are the options open to Bangladesh? Should it continue to go by the unfair conditions of the deal with Adani to the ultimate disadvantage of Bangladesh and its consumers or cancel it (the deal) altogether despite risks and challenges involved? Needless to say, despite its limitations, the interim admin has to take an expeditious but firm, well-thought-out stance on the Adani power deal issue, if only, to protect national interest before it is too late.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Highlight Cite Fact Check Respond

Bangladesh’s renewable ambitions aren't actually unrealistic

27 January 2026, 00:10 AM
By Sudeepto Roy

1769564554102.webp

Blended finance, green bonds and sukuk, stronger use of institutions like IDCOL, and deeper engagement with development partners can create projects that investors will be willing to fund. Photo: FREPIK

Bangladesh’s energy transition is now at a point where execution matters most. The country’s climate commitments, including the Mujib Climate Prosperity Plan (MCPP) 2022-2041 and the Integrated Energy and Power Master Plan (IEPMP) 2023, set ambitious targets for renewable energy (RE) capacity. MCPP has set renewable goals up to 40 percent by 2041. Bangladesh will need to invest between $23.9 and 53.7 billion to build the necessary capacity and meet these goals. The implementation of solar-based projects will require most of the expenditure—over 65.6 percent. For the rest, wind-based power projects will require 15.8 percent of the expenditure, while hydro power projects will require 18.4 percent. However, despite clear goals, financing remains slow and uneven.

Our country currently uses two primary domestic channels to finance RE. Bangladesh Bank (BB) has operated a refinancing scheme since 2009, helping commercial banks extend loans to renewable and other green projects. Loan tenures extend beyond eight years, and the fund size doubled from Tk 200 in the beginning to Tk 400 crore. BB is lending the money at interest rates from five percent to 12 percent.

The other domestic channel is the Infrastructure Development Company Limited’s (IDCOL’s) renewable energy financing scheme and programmes. IDCOL has so far implemented numerous refinancing schemes and coordinated programmes to diversify RE installations in solar micro and mini-grids, solar irrigation, biogas and biomass-based energy generation, and other commercial-scale RE projects. There was a major reform in July 2022, which made solar and other green projects eligible for loans at a rate of five to six percent, with refinancing ceilings of TK 10 crore for rooftop solar and Tk 35 crore for large solar parks.

Besides these mechanisms, Bangladesh has begun experimenting with innovative financial instruments. For example, Tk 30 billion green sukuk issued by Beximco in 2021 to finance a 230 MW solar project demonstrated the potential of Sharia-compliant finance for large-scale renewable deployment. BB introduced a formal green bond framework in 2022. The framework provides clear eligibility criteria and a national taxonomy for green market activities. These steps represent an important foundation for a domestic green capital market, but the scale remains small compared to what is needed.

But the problem lies in the lack of awareness of entrepreneurs regarding available financing options. Some concerns persist over banks’ reluctance to provide long-term loans. On top of that, the loan disbursement process is slow. Many renewable projects fail not because they are technically unfeasible, but because financing structures do not adequately manage risk. Power producers face uncertainty over long-term costs. Additionally, lenders are concerned about exchange rate exposure. International investors also struggle to reconcile Bangladesh’s regulatory environment with global risk standards. These challenges discourage the private sector from investing in renewable energy.

In 2024, the amount disbursed in green finance was Tk 30,653.78 crore, accounting for 13.29 percent of total term loan disbursement. In 2023, the amount was Tk 19,304.31. Despite the positive trend, these flows fall far short of the long-term financing needed to meet renewable energy goals. This gap highlights the importance of blended finance, where concessional public funds are combined with private capital through grants, equity, guarantees, and risk-sharing instruments. There are international programmes, such as the World Bank’s Scaling Solar and the Inter-American Development Bank’s sustainable energy initiative, which show how blended finance can lower tariffs, accelerate deployment, and integrate renewables into national grid models.

With blended finance, green bonds present an opportunity for Bangladesh to mobilise long-term capital. The domestic bond market, as well as international institutional investors, could play a transformative role if supported by appropriate policy frameworks. Sovereign green bonds could finance grid upgrades and large-scale renewable parks, while corporate green bonds could support independent power producers.

International experience offers useful lessons for Bangladesh, particularly from Vietnam and India. After introducing feed-in tariffs and fiscal incentives, Vietnam’s solar and wind capacity experienced a rapid transformation. By the end of 2023, combined solar and wind capacity reached about 21,664 MW, accounting for around 27 percent of total installed power capacity, up from virtually negligible levels just a few years earlier. Vietnam’s corporate tax regime offers preferential rates as low as 10 percent for up to 15 years for qualifying renewable and environmental energy projects, along with tax holidays and reductions in the first years of operation. The government also provides land-use and land-rent exemptions and import tax relief for renewable energy investments. Together, these measures sharply improved project profitability and attracted large volumes of private investment in a short period of time.

In India, diversified financing has helped drive rapid renewable transformation. By 2025, the country’s total installed renewable energy capacity reached around 254 GW, including about 133 GW of solar and 54 GW of wind. At the same time, India’s green finance market has expanded rapidly. In 2024, cumulative green and sustainability-linked debt issuance had grown to nearly $55.9 billion, with most of the funds flowing into clean energy projects.

Encouragingly, the tone from Bangladesh’s interim government on energy policy is signalling positive change. Instead of focusing almost entirely on building more capacity, there is a growing concern with financial discipline in the power sector, the performance of state-owned utilities, and the heavy fiscal burden created by inefficient contracts. There is also clearer recognition that renewable targets cannot be met through public spending alone.

Bangladesh’s renewable ambitions are therefore not unrealistic. But they will only materialise if the way projects are financed changes just as fundamentally as the technology itself. Blended finance, green bonds, and sukuk, stronger use of institutions like IDCOL, and deeper engagement with development partners can create projects that investors are willing to fund. If this momentum continues, the energy transition will no longer be just a climate commitment. It will become part of the country’s broader economic strategy, strengthening energy security, easing fiscal pressure, and supporting long-term growth. The decisions taken today on energy financing will therefore shape not only Bangladesh’s climate future, but also the competitiveness and resilience of its economy for decades to come.

Sudeepto Roy is research associate at the South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (SANEM).​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Highlight Cite Fact Check Respond

Bangladesh to receive $42mn in compensation from Niko over 2005 gas field blowouts

bdnews24.com
Published :
Jan 29, 2026 22:53
Updated :
Jan 29, 2026 22:53

1769733340398.webp


An international tribunal has ordered Canadian oil and gas firm Niko Resources to pay $42 million in compensation to state-run Petrobangla over two gas field blowouts in Chhatak, Sunamganj, in 2005.

The confirmation about the order given by the US-based International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) came from Petrobangla Chairman Md Rezanur Rahman on Thursday.

“Niko has been ordered to pay $42 million in compensation,” said Rezanur.

Bangladesh will decide its next course of action after receiving the full copy of the verdict, he said.

Though the verdict came on Dec 18, Rezanur said Petrobangla came to know of the outcome on Wednesday.

Along with $42 million for losses in the blowout of 8 billion cubic feet of gas, the tribunal ordered Niko to pay $20 million in environmental compensation.

The order determining the amount of damages Niko owes Bangladesh comes six years after the tribunal found the company responsible for the blowouts.

In February 2020, the Tribunal ordered the compensation, asking for the loss and damages to be determined.

Bangladesh had claimed $1 billion in compensation. Gas blowout compensations are determined under two categories: loss of gas resources and environmental damage.

Bangladesh appointed the US-based law firm Foley Hoag LLP to determine the loss and damage from the blowouts.

Bangladesh had first filed its compensation claim with ICSID in March 2016. The claim demanded $11.8 million compensation for Bangladesh Petroleum Exploration & Production Company Limited (BAPEX) and $89.6 million for Petrobangla.

Besides gas and environmental losses, the claim focused on costs from Bangladesh having to buy gas from alternative sources after the blowouts.

In 2003, Niko signed a joint venture agreement with BAPEX to develop gas fields in Feni and Chhatak.

Petrobangla subsequently agreed to buy the gas extracted from the Feni field under a gas purchase and sales agreement.

However, a drilling well at Chhatak's Tengratila gas field exploded in January 2005 and was followed by another blowout at the same place later in June, resulting in extensive damage to the gas well, human lives, and the environment.

A government probe into the blowouts found fault in Niko's drilling procedure, prompting Petrobangla to sue the company for damages in a Bangladeshi court.

The state-run energy corporation subsequently stopped paying for the gas supplied from Feni in 2009 after the High Court put a freeze on all payments to Niko until the compensation claim was resolved.

But Niko instead pursued arbitration proceedings by filing two cases with the Washington-based ICSID, requesting a declaration absolving it of liability for the two blowouts and demanding payment for the gas it had supplied to Petrobangla from the Feni gas field.

Niko's claim against liability for the explosions was later dismissed by the tribunal in 2013.

The following year, the arbitral tribunal also stayed its second case until the matter of compensation for the Tengratila blowouts was resolved.

Reports in the media at the time also indicated an attempted cover-up of the blowouts by the BNP-Jamaat-e-Islam coalition government at the time.

Niko had reportedly given an SUV to the then state minister for power AKM Mosharraf Hossain as a kickback.

A Niko official later confessed to the bribery and was fined 9.5 million Canadian dollars by a Canadian court.

In its first verdict, the ICSID ruled in favour of Bangladesh, noting that Niko violated the terms of its agreement with Petrobangla by failing to comply with international standards in carrying out its work in the gas fields.

Niko’s bankruptcy casts doubt on the recovery of the compensation.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Highlight Cite Fact Check Respond

Making the LPG market cartel-free

FE
Published :
Jan 29, 2026 23:49
Updated :
Jan 29, 2026 23:49

1769733724176.webp


The ongoing liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) crisis in the country appears to be less of a problem of supply and more of a consequence of weak regulatory oversight, which has allowed market distortion through cartelisation. Despite imports exceeding domestic consumption needs during the July-December 2025 period, consumers across the country have been grappling with an acute shortage of LPG, accompanied with a sharp and often unjustified rise in retail prices. This disconnect between availability and access raises serious questions about market transparency, competition and regulatory control.

Official data show that LPG imports averaged 152,818 metric tonnes (MT) per month during the period, comfortably above the country's average monthly demand for around 125,000 MT. Yet, consumers continue to face what industry insiders describe as an artificial shortage. In many areas, LPG cylinders are either unavailable or sold at prices nearly double the government-fixed rates, indicating deliberate supply manipulation rather than a genuine scarcity of fuel. A key factor behind this situation is the oligopolistic structure of the LPG market. Although 58 companies have been licensed to operate, only seven to eight firms are actively importing LPG. According to the National Board of Revenue (NBR) data, just seven companies imported 121,750.12 MT of LPG in December 2025. While this marked a significant month-on-month increase, the concentration of import activity in a few hands has made the supply chain vulnerable to coordinated control. With limited competition, dominant players are able to influence supply flows and dictate retail pricing, undermining the very purpose of a liberalised market. Sector insiders and energy officials largely agree that the crisis is not driven by a lack of imported LPG. Instead, they point to deliberate supply restrictions, particularly during peak winter demand, to push prices higher. The situation has been exacerbated by rising demand for LPG as natural gas supplies continue to decline, forcing households and businesses to rely heavily on cylindered fuel. Looking ahead, demand for LPG is projected to reach 2.5 million tonnes by 2030 - a 60 per cent increase within the next five years. Analysts warn that if the current monopolised structure persists, it could pose a serious threat to the country's energy security.

While some market operators have blamed supply disruptions from the Middle East and the presence of illegal distributors outside the regulated system, these explanations appear insufficient. Given the adequacy of imports and the dominance of a small group of companies, it is difficult to dismiss the decisive role of cartels in shaping market outcomes. Energy experts argue that the government's failure to enforce existing competition and regulatory laws has allowed a few major operators to control the market.

The authorities can no longer afford to remain passive. Ensuring fair competition, activating dormant licence holders, strengthening monitoring of imports and distribution, and taking firm action against cartel behaviour are essential to restoring stability to the LPG market. Without decisive intervention, consumers will continue to bear the cost of an artificially contrived and poorly regulated system.​
 
Analyze

Analyze Post

Add your ideas here:
Highlight Cite Fact Check Respond

Members Online

Latest Posts

Back
PKDefense
G
O
 
H
O
M
E