Saturday, July 5, 2025
‘Take or Pay’ Tightens Monopsony Trap
The budget speech for fiscal year 2025/26 included a sentence: "a policy will be adopted to maintain balance between electricity generation and consumption while signing PPAs. It will be signed for run-of-river (RoR) projects under the 'take and pay' model", which would require Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) to purchase electricity only when needed. This would reduce financial liabilities from surplus "flood energy" to NEA. This was a positive step that would have ensured better fiscal health of NEA and reduced its dependency on India to sell flood electricity.
Retracted after opposition
However, IPPs vehemently opposed the take and pay model and some “experts” joined the bandwagon. They claimed that under this model the electricity market for the IPPs would vanish and demanded continuation of the current ‘take or pay’ model. What those experts forgot is that NEA itself is not an electricity market, its job is only to buy in bulk from IPPs and retail it to consumers. The experts’ insistence that NEA must buy all the electricity from IPPs although the former cannot sell to consumers and would be spilled (wasted) is absurd at best. Even the private sector entrepreneurs adhere to the take and pay model. They would not purchase commodities or services that they are unable to sell to the consumers.
Further, a narrative was created that it does not matter if NEA incurs loss, but the private sector must be protected from any loss. Since NEA is fully owned by GoN, it incurring loss increases GoN’s fiscal burden, which in turn increases taxpayers’ burden. [However, it does not mean that NE, should be allowed to profiteer; NEA, a monopoly utility, is not expected to exploit consumers to earn huge profit.] Perhaps these experts did not realize the ground reality of forcing NEA to buy flood electricity from IPPs, which the former would not be able to retail and its profound and long-term adverse impact not only on NEA but also on GoN and the country’s economy.
The energy minister, Deepak Khadka also joined the fray and surprised the general public by calling this model a serious mistake. He said in the parliament that and this provision would be amended. It is perhaps only in Nepal that not only a member of the cabinet that passed the budget but also the concerned departmental ministers speaking against the provision in the budget.
Former prime minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, who is the President of the Nepali Congress, a powerful coalition partner, had reportedly phoned Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and threatened to pull out of the coalition causing it to collapse if this modality is not “removed”. He had phoned the Finance Minister Bishnu Paudel too, telling him to remove it.
Eventually the main parties in the coalition government, Congress and UML, agreed to remove this provision and pass the budget. Thereafter, the sentence in the budget speech was replaced with the following sentence: “PPAs can be signed for hydropower projects that are confirmed to have domestic consumption or export potential and for which the NEA can ensure payment obligations based on financial risk assessment.” This amounts to reinstatement of the status quo ante and NEA will have to continue to sign PPAs on ‘take or pay’ model, although it was not spelled out in so many words. By retracting as such GoN has driven one more nail in the coffin of the principle of self-reliant energy security inherent in ‘take and pay’ model. Because all the governments so far have not been concerned with Nepal’s energy security, and the concept of self-reliant energy security has not even been imagined.
Take and Pay
Under the take and pay model, NEA would purchase electricity from IPPs in the quantity that it can sell to the consumers domestically. That is, NEA would “take” electricity from IPPs “and” would “pay” with an eye on maintaining “balance between electricity generation and consumption.”
RoR projects generate relatively a lot more electricity in the monsoon, most of which has no demand in Nepal, and, hence, called spill energy (that goes waste). At the moment RoR projects are implemented with a design discharge of 40 percent known also as Q40. RoR powerhouses generate electricity at full installed capacity 40 percent of the time (4.8 months) in a year and generate close to one-third of the installed capacity in the remaining 7.2 months. Upper Tamakoshi can be cited as an example: although its installed capacity is 456 MW and generates at near full capacity during monsoon, but generates about 150 MW only during dry season. Under the take and pay model, NEA would neither have to purchase the rainy season electricity beyond what NEA could sell domestically, nor have to pay for such spill energy.
Because, electricity demand in Nepal is relatively higher during dry season and lower in wet season thereby resulting in mismatch in demand and supply. That is why the take and pay model was incorporated in the budget speech initially to maintain balance between electricity generation and consumption thereof. In other words, this model would have reduced/minimized flood (spill) energy.
Take or Pay
The history of the take or pay model is rooted in the 60 MW Khimti hydropower project (RoR). After the Electricity Act was promulgated in 1992, for the first time in Nepal’s history foreign direct investment (FDI) was injected into Khimti hydropower project (the infrastructure sector) by Statkraft SF (SF), a Norwegian company. Himal Power Limited (HPL) was incorporated in February 1993, in which SF held 75 percent equity. GoN and NEA signed project agreement (PA) and power purchase agreement (PPA) respectively with HPL in March 1994. The take or pay model was incorporated in this PPA for the first time and Khimti was to have 65 percent design discharge (Q65). Both these agreements were amended in January 1996. [Self-declaration: This author had joined HPL in May 1994 and had signed as witness the amended PA and PPA in the capacity of company secretary. At that time, he was neither familiar with the jargon used in these agreements including the phrase “take or pay” (being a non-technical person) nor was he involved in the decision making process – all the decisions were taken by the Board of Directors of HPL and that of SF. The author stopped working for HPL in October 1998 and about five or six years afterwards an article was published in Kantipur Daily under the title ‘Khimti’s Villains’ and his name included in the list of villains. This impelled him to undertake self-study to understand manifestation and ramification of the jargons used in those agreements, including the take or pay model.]
The ministers and the top bureaucrats of the time both in GoN and NEA hardly understood the full ramification of this model. The politicians and bureaucrats running the government at the time must have accepted the conditions of SF (both legitimate and otherwise) with the sole aim of attracting FDI in Nepal and keeping investors happy by ensuring to sell all the electricity generated by Khimti. It is also possible that high officials of NEA had accepted the model under pressure from GoN.
Electricity generation from RoR projects depends on the quantum of water flowing in the river. That is, due to the hydrological cycle, Nepal’s rivers are flooded during the rainy season and accordingly, RoR projects generate electricity at full capacity during monsoon. While water flow in the rivers during dry season is very low and, hence, the electricity generation also decreases by up to two-thirds.
The electricity demand during rainy season in Nepal is relatively low and, notwithstanding it, PPAs under take or pay model requires NEA to buy (take) all rainy season electricity, although NEA would not be able to sell most of it and would go waste (hence it is called ‘spill energy’) compulsorily and pay. Even if NEA is not to buy spill energy, NEA is still required to pay for it. That is why the model is called ‘take or pay’. Although NEA and/or Nepal does not need much electricity during the rainy season, it must take (buy) it and even if NEA does not take it, the prescribed amount must be paid (or pay).
The irony of the take or pay model is that NEA is currently purchasing all flood energy from IPPs, most of which would go waste. Private sector entrepreneurs would not have touched such a model even with a barge pole.
Flood energy
In view of the fact that most of the spill energy is generated during monsoon, when rivers are flooded, it is called “flood” energy. There have been difficult situations with regard to such energy. There was a lot of hullabaloo about wasting flood energy worth Rs 25 billion during the 2020 rainy season. Similarly, the officials of IPPAN (independent power producers association of Nepal) had claimed that 500 MW electricity from 30 projects was wasted during the 2021 rainy season, worth Rs 500 billion.
Export to India
India initially agreed to import only 39 MW electricity generated by powerhouses in Trishuli and Devighat in November 2021, both owned by NEA and implemented with Indian assistance. Later in September 2023 India approved 14 hydropower plants to import electricity from Nepal, 5 powerhouses belonging to NEA totaling 313 MW and 9 powerhouses owned by IPPs totaling 319 MW. The reason behind this cherry picking is section 6.3 (i) of “Procedure for Approval and Facilitating Import/Export (Cross Border) of Electricity” discussed below.
In this manner, NEA basically became dependent upon India to dispose off the flood energy. Last fiscal year NEA exported 1,946 GWh flood energy to India for Rs 17.066 billion and it had projected to export flood energy worth Rs 30 billion by 15th July this year.
However, NEA’s dependence upon India with regard to flood energy export is fraught with a number of risks. According to Section 6.3 (i) of the Procedure mentioned above, India neither buys electricity generated by the powerhouses implemented with Chinese investment nor constructed by Chinese contractors; not even if Chinese machinery and equipment is used. Basically, India resorts to cherry picking in the matter of buying flood energy from Nepal.
Although electricity is a commodity and once generated and flows through the transmission/distribution network, it is physically/scientifically impossible to determine the exact powerhouse from which the electricity is generated at the time of using it. However, due to this tendency of India, NEA is in great difficulty. Using the above mentioned condition India is treating Upper Tamakoshi, largest hydropower project of Nepal, as an untouchable project. The combined effect of this condition of India and the 'take or pay' model has put NEA in a vicious cycle.
Further, Section 6.7.1 of the procedure is even more dangerous, under which India reserves the right to import/export electricity from Nepal for reasons of larger policy interest. India can suddenly stop importing flood energy from Nepal at any time. If India is to exercise this discretionary authority suddenly, the market for flood energy that NEA purchases under take or pay model would suddenly vanish. It could bankrupt NEA and add a huge fiscal burden on GoN. Based on the track record of India having already imposed four economic blockades on Nepal, excessive dependency on India would be harmful to both NEA and GoN. Care should be taken to ensure that NEA does not drown under flood energy. Meaning IPPs need to appreciate that if NEA goes bankrupt under the burden of flood energy, IPPs too would suffer.
28,500 MW target
GoN had approved a target of generating 28,500 MW of electricity by 2035 in March 2025, of which 13,500 MW would be consumed domestically and export 15,000 MW. IPPs too have stated that more than 350 projects with a capacity of 17,117 MW is in their pipeline. Last fiscal year, when Nepal’s total installed capacity was 3,157 MW, NEA had to export 1,946 GWh flood energy. If PPAs were signed on a take-or-pay model for 17,117 MW, NEA will have to purchase 11,071 GWh of flood energy, which would be worth Rs 96.32 billion. If India refuses to buy this flood energy, not only NEA but GoN too will be severely impacted.
Q40
The main reason behind generation of huge quantities of flood energy is due to the fact that the design discharge of powerhouses is fixed at Q40, under which the powerhouses generate electricity at full capacity for 40 percent of a year as pointed out above, most of which is flood energy. Due to which, most of the civil works and electro-mechanical equipment stay idle for 60 percent of the time. In order to cover for this idle investment, the current PPA tariff includes a component to compensate IPPs. Had the PPA tariff not included this component, IPPs would have incurred loss.
Therefore, Q40 policy is responsible for the huge quantum of flood energy. If it was to be revised upwards to Q60 or even Q70/80, the flood energy would have been much lower. The then deputy prime minister Shailaja Acharya, while announcing PPA for up to 5 MW, had fixed the design discharge at 90 percent (Q90) in June 1998. Later she agreed to reduce it to Q65 in November 1998, emulating the Khimti. However, the design discharge was lowered to Q40 in December 2008. It was further planned to reduce to Q25 in the expectation that installed capacity would increase by up to 85.4 percent and annual energy generation would increase by 40.2 percent in August 2022. The poisonous icing on the cake would be that most of the electricity would be flood energy, estimated to increase by 59.3 percent, which, fortunately, was not implemented.
Although, announcement of the take and pay model was a right step, it was like the adage “the head is sick, but the leg is being treated.” Because, while the combined effect of Indian condition in its procedure and the 'take or pay' model has put NEA in a straitjacket, the added impact of design discharge of 40 percent is fatal, as it would tighten the monopsony trap that would be discussed below.
Monopsony Trap
India is a single buyer for Nepal’s flood energy, hence, it is a monopsony market. Although a tripartite agreement was signed between, NEA, NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam of India, and Bangladesh Power Development Board to export 40 MW from Nepal to Bangladesh via India. However, she is not a good paymaster (has defaulted to Adani Power and Tripura State Electricity Board. Therefore, Indian hegemony in Nepal’s hydropower sector has been inadvertently established and generation of additional flood energy would strengthen it.
As mentioned above the design discharge of 40 percent coupled with take or pay model and India’s procedure allowing it to studently stop purchasing flood energy from Nepal, the monopsony trap becomes tighter.
Conclusion
Take or pay model for Khimti project, with 65 percent design discharge was accepted mainly to attract FDI in Nepal. When Khimti was commissioned in July 2000, Nepal was in the midst of an energy crisis and even monsoon energy came as a relief. However, NEA started to spill electricity when 144 MW Kali Gandaki A was fully commissioned in May 2002. Frantic efforts were made by NEA to sell the flood energy from this project in India, unsuccessfully.
With the increase in hydropower generation both by NEA and IPPs, the design discharge should have been tailored to meet Nepal’s requirement both during dry season and monsoon. On the contrary it was reduced to 40 percent and even planned to reduce it to 25 percent, due to which Nepal is generating a lot of flood energy with only India as a market, thereby tightening the monopsony trap, which is fatal for Nepal as explained above. It is not prudent to allow a non-well-wisher to have one by short and curlies (begging forgiveness for the choice of words).
Ratna Sansar Shrestha, FCA
Published in Peoples Review of July 3, 2025.
https://mypeoplesreview.com/2025/07/01/take-or-pay-tightens-monopsony-trap/
Thursday, June 26, 2025
‘टेक एन्ड पे’ को पक्षमा
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
विद्युत् व्यापार सम्झौता : नेपालको लम्पसारवादी अर्थनीति
Monday, March 31, 2025
सडकबाट फर्कंदैनन् राजा
नेपाल अहिले चरम आर्थिक संकटमा छ। बैंकहरूमा तरलता थुप्रिएको छ। देशमा लगानी गर्ने अवस्था नहुनाले मानिसहरू लगानी गर्न अनिच्छुक छन्। किनभने सर्वसाधारणमा क्रयशक्तिको अभावले बजारमा माग छैन, उत्पादित वस्तु बिक्री हुने सुनिश्चितता छैन र ऋण लिनेले साँवा–ब्याज तिर्न सक्ने आत्मविश्वास गुमाएका छन्। त्यसैले देशको अर्थतन्त्र चलायमान हुन सकेको छैन। उता नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंकमा विदेशी मुद्रा थुप्रिएको छ, जसलाई उत्पादनमूलक काममा लगाउन राज्य सञ्चालकहरू असफल छन्। तर सरकारका अर्थमन्त्रीले कर्मचारीलाई तलब खुवाउन ऋण लिनुपर्ने शंका व्यक्त गर्छन्।
त्यसैले सर्वसाधारणमा वितृष्णा व्यापक छ र जनता घोर निराशामा डुबेका छन्। यो अवस्था भजाउनका लागि केही निहित स्वार्थ भएकाहरूले ‘राजा आऊ, देश बचाऊ’ भन्ने नारा लगाएर आन्दोलन सुरु गरेका छन्। यही चैत १५ गते राजावादीले विगतमा माओवादीप्रति सहानुभूति राख्ने र नेकपा एमालेको केन्द्रीय समितिमा मनोनीत मेडिकल व्यवसायी दुर्गा प्रसाईंलाई कमान्डर बनाएर आयोजना गरेको विरोध कार्यक्रममा अपेक्षाकृत जनसहभागिता नभएको मात्र होइन, राजावादी दलहरू राप्रपा र राप्रपा नेपालले धोका दिएको आरोपसमेत लाग्यो। उक्त कार्यक्रममा उच्छृङ्खलता प्रदर्शन भयो। हिंस्रक प्रवृत्ति देखाउँदै तोडफोड, आगजनी मात्र नगरेर लुटपाटसमेत गरियो। र, अनाहकमा दुई नेपालीको ज्यान गयो।
सर्वसाधारणले राजावादीको विरोध कार्यक्रम भद्र, शालीन, सौम्य हुने अपेक्षा गरेका थिए तर राजावादीले राजतन्त्रको छवि नै धुमिल पारे। स्मरणीय छ, यी कमान्डरले २०७९ सालमा बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाबाट लिएको ऋण नतिर्ने अभियान राष्ट्रव्यापी रूपमा चलाएका थिए। उनले साढे पाँच अर्बभन्दा बढी ऋण लिएका छन् भनिन्छ। यसरी ऋणको साँवा–ब्याज नतिर्दा ती संस्थामा निक्षेप जम्मा गर्ने र तिनमा सेयर लगानी गर्ने सर्वसाधारणको रगत–पसिनाको कमाइ डुब्छ भन्ने ती व्यक्तिलाई बोध छैन वा संवेदनहीन रहेछन्। यिनको नेतृत्वमा पुनःस्थापित हुने राजसंस्था कस्तो होला भनेर कल्पना पनि कष्टप्रद छ।
राजावादीले २०४७ सालको संविधानको प्रावधान पुनः जीवित गर्नुपर्ने प्रस्ताव गरेका छन्, जसमा संवैधानिक राजाको व्यवस्था छ। देश चरम आर्थिक संकटमा रहेकाले संवैधानिक राजसंस्था पुनःस्थापित भएमा आर्थिक संकट निवारण भएर देश बच्छ कि बच्दैन भन्ने सम्बन्धमा निम्न पंक्तिमा विवेचना गरिएको छ।
आर्थिक अवस्था
देश आर्थिक संकटमा रहेको तथ्य विगतका आन्तरिक आर्थिक सूचकांकसँग हालको सूचकांकको तुलना गरेमा प्रस्टिन्छ। उद्योग क्षेत्रलाई देशको अर्थतन्त्रको मेरुदण्ड मानिन्छ र पञ्चायतकालको अन्त्यतिर २०४६÷४७ सालमा नेपालको कुल गार्हस्थ्य उत्पादन (जिडिपी) मा उद्योग क्षेत्रको योगदान १८.४ प्रतिशत भएकामा २०८०÷८१ मा १३ प्रतिशतमा खुम्चिएको छ, जुन क्रमैसँग घट्दै गएको हो। २०७८÷७९ मा १४.२४ प्रतिशत भएकामा २०७९÷८० मा १३.६ प्रतिशत घटेको थियो। त्यसैले देशमा रोजगारीको अभाव भएर झन्डै ६० लाख नेपाली श्रम स्वीकृति लिएर वैदेशिक रोजगारीमा गएको तथ्यांक छ, जसमा भारत जानेको संख्या समावेश छैन किनभने भारतमा रोजगारीमा जान श्रम स्वीकृति आवश्यक छैन। अनौपचारिक अनुमानअनुसार ४० लाख नेपाली भारतमा रोजगारी गर्छन्। अर्थात् कुल जनसंख्याको एकतिहाइ विदेशमा काम गर्छन् र ठूलो परिमाणमा विप्रेषण नेपाल भित्रिन्छ, जसलाई सरकारले उत्पादनमूलक काममा लगाउन नसकेकाले राष्ट्र बैंकमा ठूलो परिमाणमा विदेशी मुद्रा थुप्रिएको हो।
नेपालको जिडिपीमा उद्योग क्षेत्रको योगदानको चर्चा गर्दा छिमेकी देशहरूसँग दाँज्दा बुझ्न सजिलो हुन्छ। गत वर्ष दक्षिण एशियाली देशहरूमध्ये भारतको २७.६२ प्रतिशत, बंगलादेशको ३७.९५ प्रतिशत र श्रीलंकाको २५.५९ प्रतिशत थियो। बंगलादेशबाट प्रधानमन्त्री शेख हसिना गत साउन २१ गते भाग्न बाध्य भएका कारण त्यहाँको अर्थतन्त्र समस्याग्रस्त नभएर आरक्षणप्रति सर्वसाधारण आक्रोशित भएकाले हो। त्यहाँको अर्थतन्त्र सुदृढ नै थियो र छ। तर श्रीलंकाबाट त्यहाँका राष्ट्रपति गोटाबाया राजापक्ष र उनको परिवार २०७९ साल असार २९ गते भाग्नुपरेको भने त्यहाँको अर्थतन्त्रमा आएको तरलता समस्याले हो। त्यहाँको अर्थतन्त्रको मेरुदण्ड उद्योग क्षेत्र सुदृढ हुनाले अहिले त्यहाँको तरलताको समस्या निराकरण हुँदै गएको छ र अर्थतन्त्र समस्यामुक्त हुँदैछ। बहुसंख्यक नेपालीले नेपाललाई भुटानसँग दाँज्ने गर्छन् तर त्यहाँको जिडिपीमा उद्योग क्षेत्रको योगदान ४९.९६ प्रतिशत छ।
नेपालको अन्य आन्तरिक आर्थिक सूचकांक पनि उत्साहजनक छैन। क्रमैसँग खस्कँदै आएको छ। पञ्चायतकालको अन्तिम दशक (२०३६–४६) मा औसत व्यापार घाटा १२ प्रतिशत, औसत पुँजीगत खर्च ६७.२ प्रतिशत र जनतालाई औसत करको भार ८.७ प्रतिशत भएकोमा बहुदलकाल (२०४६–५६) मा खस्केर औसत व्यापार घाटा १७.१ प्रतिशत, औसत पुँजीगत खर्च ५६.९ प्रतिशत र जनतालाई औसत करको भार १०.१ प्रतिशत पुगेको थियो। त्यस्तै २०५६–६६ को सशस्त्र द्वन्द्वकालमा औसत व्यापार घाटा १६.६ प्रतिशत, औसत पुँजीगत खर्च ३०.७ प्रतिशत र जनतालाई औसत करको भार ११.९ प्रतिशतमा झरेको थियो। २०६६–७६ को गणतन्त्रकालमा यी सूचकांकहरू थप खस्केर औसत व्यापार घाटा २७.५ प्रतिशत, औसत पुँजीगत खर्च २३.७ प्रतिशत र जनतालाई औसत करको भार १७.१ प्रतिशत पुग्यो। अझ २०७६–८१ को संघीयताकालमा त अझ धेरै खस्केर व्यापार घाटा २९.५ प्रतिशत, औसत पुँजीगत खर्च १७ प्रतिशत र जनतालाई औसत करको भार २० प्रतिशत पुगेको छ।
देशमा रोजगारीको अभाव हुनुको ठूलो कारण देशमा भएका उद्योग–कलकारखाना पूर्ण क्षमतामा सञ्चालन हुन नसक्नु र नयाँ उद्योग स्थापना हुन नसक्नु हो भने राज्यले पुँजीगत खर्च गर्न नसक्नाले पनि रोजगारी सिर्जना हुन नसकेको हो। समुचित पुँजीगत खर्च भए रोजगारी सिर्जना हुनुको अतिरिक्त निर्माण सामग्रीको पनि खपत बढेर निर्माण सामग्री उद्योगको सञ्चालन बढी रोजगारी सिर्जना हुनुको अतिरिक्त उत्पादन बढेर पनि अर्थतन्त्र चलायमान हुन्थ्यो। पञ्चायतकालको तुलनामा राज्यको पुँजीगत खर्च गर्ने क्षमता ५० प्रतिशत विन्दुले घट्नु ठूलो दुर्भाग्य हो। नेपालको आन्तरिक आर्थिक सूचकांक उल्लेख्य नहुनाको कारण देखाउँदा राज्य सञ्चालकले पाँच वर्षअघि फैलिएको कोरोना संक्रमण र त्यसलाई नियन्त्रण गर्न गरिएको लकडाउनलाई दोष दिने गर्छन्। कोरोना संक्रमण त भारतलगायत सबै देशमा फैलिएको थियो। तर भारतलगायत देशको आर्थिक स्थिति नेपालको जस्तो दयनीय छैन किनभने ती देशको मेरुदण्ड (उद्योग क्षेत्र) सुदृढ छ।
जोखिम
बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूको खराब कर्जाको अनुपात पाँच प्रतिशतको हाराहारीमा पुगेको छ। साथै खराब कर्जाको अनुपात बढ्न नदिन बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले बक्यौता ऋण पुनर्तालिकीकरण गर्दै आएका छन्। पुनर्तालिकीकरण गर्नु भनेको समस्या समाधान गर्नु नभएर पन्छाउनु मात्र हो, जसले समस्या अझ जटिल बनाउँछ। अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मुद्रा कोषले अनौपचारिक रूपमा यो अनुपात १५ प्रतिशत पुगेको शंका गरेको छ। यसका साथै बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूमा गैरबैंकिङ सम्पत्ति पनि थुप्रिएको छ, जुन बैंकहरूले कर्जा असुली नभएपछि ऋणीले राखेको धितो लिलाम गर्दा लिलाममा बैंक आफैंले सकार गरेको घरजग्गालगायतका अचल सम्पत्ति हो।
यसै पृष्ठभूमिमा अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय मुद्रा कोषको सर्तअनुसार नेपाल राष्ट्र बैंकले अन्तर्राष्ट्रिय बोलपत्र आह्वान गरेर ६ वटा विदेशी लेखापरीक्षण संस्थाको छोटो सूची बनाएको थियो। यसअन्तर्गत १० वटा ठूला वाणिज्य बैंकहरूको कर्जा प्रवाह, चुक्ता पुँजी, मुनाफालगायत वित्तीय सूचकको आधारमा वित्तीय लेखापरीक्षण गरिन्छ। उक्त लेखापरीक्षणले ऋणको पुनर्तालिकीकरणबारे पनि औंल्याउनुपर्नेछ। यसको प्रतिवेदन सार्वजनिक भएपछि धरातलीय यथार्थ प्रस्टिनेछ।
यथास्थितिमा खराब कर्जा असुलउपर गर्न तथा गैरबैंकिङ सम्पत्ति घटाउन बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले धितो रहेको र ती संस्थाहरूले सकार गरेको घरजग्गालगायत ठूलो परिमाणका अचल सम्पत्ति लिलाम गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यात्मक अवस्था चाँडै आउनेछ र अहिले नै पनि धेरैजसो बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले लिलामीका सूचना निरन्तर रूपमा प्रकाशित गर्दै आएका छन्। तर अहिले बजारमा घरजग्गाको माग छैन र बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूले ठूलो परिमाणमा घरजग्गा लिलाम गर्न थालेको अवस्थामा यसको शृङ्खलाबद्ध प्रतिक्रियाले देशको अर्थतन्त्र अझ द्रुत गतिमा खस्कने जोखिम छ। तर राज्य सञ्चालकको ध्यान यसतर्फ आकर्षित भएको छैन, सत्तालिप्सामा लागेका छन्।
माथिको विश्लेषणबाट निरंकुश राजतन्त्रसहितको पञ्चायती व्यवस्थाको तुलनामा संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र र गणतन्त्रकालमा देशमा आर्थिक समस्या बढ्दै गएको देखिन्छ। यसबाट संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र हुँदा पनि देशको अर्थतन्त्र समस्यामा पर्दै गएको देखिन्छ। तर यस पंक्तिकार निरंकुश राजतन्त्र मात्र होइन, वंशवादको पनि वकालत गर्दैन।
तथापि, राजावादीले नेपालको अर्थतन्त्रलाई समस्यामुक्त कसरी गर्ने भन्ने सम्बन्धमा कुनै अवधारणा व्यक्त गरेका छैनन्, न कुनै नीति, योजना, रणनीति, कार्ययोजना नै अघि सारेका छन्। साथै राजसंस्था पुनःस्थापना हुँदैमा चामत्कारिक तरिकाले देशको अर्थतन्त्र सुध्रने सम्भव छैन। अझ दुर्गा प्रसाईंजस्तो व्यक्तिलाई कमान्डर बनाएकाले बैंक तथा वित्तीय संस्थाहरूका ऋणीहरूलाई ऋण नतिर्न दुरुत्साहन हुन्छ र अर्थतन्त्रको समस्या अझ जटिल हुने जोखिम हुन्छ। यो पाटो शायद राजावादीले सोचेका छैनन्।
भ्रष्टाचार
ट्रान्सपरेन्सी इन्टरनेसनलले गत माघमा भ्रष्टाचार सूचकांकमा नेपाल एक स्थान तल खस्किएको सार्वजनिक गरेको थियो। साथै कालो धन नियन्त्रण गर्न बनाइएको अन्तरसरकारी कार्यदलले नेपाललाई ग्रे–लिस्टमा पारिसकेको छ। अर्थात् नेपालमा भ्रष्टाचार धेरै बढ्नुका साथै कालो धन पनि अत्यधिक बढेको छ। भ्रष्टाचारमा सानातिना नेता, कर्मचारीमाथि कारबाही गरिन्छ तर ठूला भ्रष्टाचारीलाई नीतिगत निर्णयको आवरणमा जोगाइन्छ। भ्रष्टाचारजन्य निर्णय गर्ने प्रधानमन्त्री, मन्त्री आदिमाथि कारबाही गरिन्न तर तल्लो तहका कर्मचारीलाई बली चढाइन्छ। भ्रष्टाचार र कालो धनकै कारणले नेपालको अर्थतन्त्र तहसनहस भएको अवस्था छ।
कालो धन नियन्त्रणसम्बन्धी प्रभावकारी कानुन निर्माण नगरेको र यससम्बन्धी भएका कानुन पनि प्रभावकारी रूपमा कार्यान्वयन नगरेकै कारणले नेपाल ग्रे–लिस्टमा परेको हो। तर कालो धन नियन्त्रणसम्बन्धी प्रभावकारी कानुन निर्माण गरेर यसको प्रभावकारी रूपमा कार्यान्वयन गरे हालका अधिकांश ठूला नेता कारबाहीमा पर्छन्। त्यसैले राज्य सञ्चालक यसतर्फ उदासीन छन्। तर यस्तो उदासीनताले गर्दा उक्त कार्यदलले नेपाललाई कालो सूचीमा राख्ने जोखिम बढेको छ। यस्तोमा राजावादीले भ्रष्टाचार र कालो धन नियन्त्रण गर्ने कुनै नीति, योजना, रणनीति, कार्ययोजना प्रस्तुत गरेका छैनन्। अनि पूर्वराजा ज्ञानेन्द्र शाह पुनः सिंहासनारूढ हुँदैमा भ्रष्टाचार र कालो धन चटक गरेर नियन्त्रणमा आउने होइन।
देशको माया
राजावादीले राजालाई जस्तो नेतालाई देशको माया हुँदैन भन्ने गरेका छन्। राजालाई आफ्ना उत्तराधिकारीलाई पनि राजा बनाउन भए पनि देशको माया गर्नुपर्ने बाध्यता हुन्छ रे। संसारमा १९५ वटा देश छन् भने ४३ वटा देशमा मात्र राजा राष्ट्रप्रमुख छन्। यसको अर्थ बाँकी १५२ देशका नेतालाई आआफ्ना देशको माया छैन भन्ने होइन। त्यस्तो भए ती देशको अस्तित्व सकिनुपर्थ्यो, जुन भएको छैन, हुने सम्भावना पनि छैन। दक्षिण एशियाका देशमध्ये भुटानबाहेक सबै गणतन्त्र छन् तर तिनको अस्तित्व संकटमा छैन। नेपालको जलस्रोतको दृष्टिकोणबाट मात्र हेर्ने हो भने भारतका नेताहरू जति देशभक्त र राष्ट्रवादी छन्, नेपालका नेताहरू त्यति नदेखिएको तथ्य नेपालले भारतसँग गरेको कोसी, गण्डक, टनकपुर र महाकाली सम्बन्धी सन्धिहरूबाट देखिन्छ। बरु राजतन्त्रात्मक देश सिक्किम, जुन कुनै हदसम्म सार्वभौमिकता सम्पन्न थियो, यसको जननिर्वाचित संसद्ले २०३१ साउनमा भारतमा गाभिने निर्णय गरेपछि अन्ततः २०३२ जेठमा सिक्किम भारतको २२औं प्रान्त बन्यो। अर्थात् राजा हुँदाहुँदै पनि एउटा देशको अस्तित्व लोप भयो। त्यसैले राजाले मात्र देशको माया गर्छ, नेताले गर्दैन भन्ने भाष्य शायद नेपालबाहेक अन्य देशमा लागू हुँदैन।
संवैधानिक राजा
राजावादीले राजा आए देश जोगिन्छ भन्ने भाष्य बनाए तर के कसरी जोगिने हो प्रस्ट पारेका छैनन्। माथि उल्लेख गरिएझैं देशको आर्थिक अवस्था सुधार्ने, अर्थतन्त्रमा देखिएको आगामी जोखिम निराकरण गर्ने, भ्रष्टाचार र कालो धन नियन्त्रण गर्ने सम्बन्धमा कुनै पनि नीति, योजना, रणनीति, कार्ययोजना सार्वजनिक गरेका छैनन्। राजावादीले २०४७ सालको संविधानको प्रावधान पुनः जीवित गर्नुपर्ने भनेकाले संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र मागेको हो र निरंकुश राजा ब्युँताउन खोजेको होइन भन्ने प्रस्ट छ। अहिलेको सन्दर्भमा निरंकुश राजतन्त्र स्वीकार्य हुँदैन।
जलस्रोतको परिप्रेक्ष्यबाट हेर्ने हो भने २०११ सालमा कोसी, २०१६ मा गण्डक, २०४८ मा टनकपुर र २०५२ मा महाकाली सन्धिजस्ता राष्ट्रघाती सन्धिहरू नेपालमा संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र हुँदा नै गरिएका हुन्। महाकाली सन्धि गर्दा त त्यसका प्रणेताहरूले सुगौली सन्धिअनुसार नेपालको एकलौटी अधिकार रहेको महाकाली नदीलाई साझा हो भन्ने भाष्य बनाएर नेपालको अधिकार आधा पानीमा मात्र सीमित नगरेर विद्यमान उपभोग्य उपयोगमा प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नपर्ने भन्ने वाक्यांश धारा ३ मा राख्न दिएर महाकाली नदीको औसत बहावमा नेपालको अधिकार ०.५ प्रतिशतमा खुम्च्याएर सबभन्दा ठूलो राष्ट्रघात गरे। महाकाली नदी नेपालको एकलौटी हो भन्ने जानकारी भए तापनि तत्कालीन संवैधानिक राजा वीरेन्द्र मुकदर्शक भएर बस्न बाध्य भए। किनभने पञ्चायती व्यवस्थामा जस्तै संवैधानिक राजतन्त्रमा मन्त्रीमण्डल (कार्यपालिका), व्यवस्थापिका र न्यायपालिकामाथि राजाले अंकुश लगाउने व्यवस्था थिएन र हुने छैन।
संविधानसभाले हाल प्रचलनमा रहेको नेपालको गणतन्त्रात्मक संविधान अत्यधिक बहुमतले पारित गरेको थियो, ९० प्रतिशत सभासदले अनुमोदन गरेका थिए। संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र लोकप्रिय भएको भए यो संविधान संविधानसभाले अनुमोदन गर्नुपर्ने थिएन। स्मरणीय छ, पहिलो संविधानसभा निर्वाचनमा राजावादी दलहरूको प्रतिनिधित्व २ प्रतिशतमा सीमित थियो भने दोस्रो संविधानसभा निर्वाचनमा यो अनुपात केही बढेर ७ प्रतिशत पुगेको थियो। ६०१ सभासदमध्ये क्रमशः १२ जना र ३७ जना सभासद थिए। अनि संसद्का लागि भएको पहिलो आमनिर्वाचनमा राजावादी दलको ०.३६ प्रतिशत प्रतिनिधित्व थियो (एकजना मात्र सांसद थिए) भने दोस्रो आमनिर्वाचनमा यो अनुपात बढेर पाँच प्रतिशत पुगेको थियो (१४ जना सांसद छन्)।
यी आँकडाबाट नेपालीमा संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र लोकप्रिय नरहेको पुष्टि हुन्छ। यस्तोमा राजावादीले अराजक उन्मादसहित हिंसक प्रदर्शनमा उत्रँदैमा संवैधानिक राजतन्त्रको पुनःस्थापना हुने होइन। बहुसंख्यक सामान्य नागरिकलाई रिझाएर २०८४ सालमा हुने आमनिर्वाचनमा दुईतिहाइ बहुमत ल्याएर संविधान संशोधन गरेर संवैधानिक राजतन्त्र पुनःस्थापना गरे हुन्छ नै।
अन्त्यमा,
नेपालको वर्तमान समस्याको जड नै अहिलेका नेता देखिएका छन्। अधिकांश नेता देशभक्त, राष्ट्रवादी छैनन् र देशको माया गर्दैनन्। तिनमा देशको अर्थतन्त्रको संकटलगायत समस्या समाधान गर्ने क्षमता देखिएन भने बहुसंख्यक नेता भ्रष्टाचारमा लिप्त छन्। यो राजनीतिक व्यवस्थामा नेताहरू ठूलो धनराशि खर्च गरेर सांसद बन्छन्, अझ ठूलो धनराशि लगानी गरेर सत्तारूढ हुन्छन्, अनि तिनको कार्यकालभित्र आफूले गरेको लगानीको धेरै गुणा अवैधानिक तरिकाले असुलउपर गर्नेमा सीमित हुन्छन्। अर्थात् मन्त्री बन्नु भनेको देशको नीति तर्जुमा गर्नु, देशको दैनिक प्रशासन सञ्चालन गर्नु नभएर निर्वाचनमा गरेको लगानी उठाउन मन्त्री बन्नैपर्ने अवस्था सिर्जना भएको छ। चैत १३ गतेदेखि संसद्को दुवै सदन विपक्षी सांसदहरूले अवरुद्ध पारेका छन्, एकजना कर्मचारीलाई मन्त्रिमण्डलले पदच्युत गर्ने निर्णय गरेको बहानामा। तिनलाई पदच्युत गरिएको गैरकानुनी भए सर्वोच्च अदालतको असाधारण अधिकार क्षेत्रअन्तर्गत उपचार हुने नै छ, यो संसद्मा छलफलको विषय नै होइन। संसद्ले कानुन निर्माण गर्न छाडेर यस्तो गतिविधिमा संलग्न हुनु वर्तमान व्यवस्थाको कमजोरी हो।
सांसदले कानुन निर्माण गरून्, स्वच्छ छविका सम्बन्धित विषय विशेषज्ञ मन्त्री बनून्। जसरी न्यायमूर्ति कार्यपालिकामा संलग्न हुन पाउँदैनन्, त्यसैगरी व्यवस्थापिकाका सदस्य (सांसद) कार्यपालिकामा संलग्न नहुने व्यवस्था भए भ्रष्टाचार धेरै हदसम्म नियन्त्रणमा आउनेछ। सम्बन्धित विषय विशेषज्ञ मन्त्री बनेमा देशको समस्या पहिचान गरेर निदान गर्न सक्छन्। यस्तो भएमा देशका अधिकांश समस्या समाधान हुन्छ र यस्तोमा राष्ट्रप्रमुख राष्ट्रपति वा संवैधानिक राजा भए पनि कुनै फरक पर्दैन।
२०८१ चैत १८ गत नागरिक दैनिकमा प्रकाशित
Ratna Sansar Shrestha
https://nagariknews.nagariknetwork.com/opinion/1470303-1743391215.html
Thursday, February 6, 2025
Innovative/Lucrative use of Surplus Electricity
In the previous fiscal year, Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) exported 1,946 GWh surplus electricity (which would have been spilled if not exported, hence it would be called spill energy hereinafter) for Rs 17.06 billion. Similarly, in the first 5 months of the current fiscal year, NEA exported 1,765 GWh of spill energy for Rs 13.04 billion; equivalent to $96.59 million. NEA has targeted to export about 4,059 GWh spill energy for Rs 30 billion, equivalent to $222.2 million, in the current fiscal year.
This is certainly a positive step. If the spill energy had not been exported, NEA could have incurred loss or will incur loss. Because currently, out of 3,242 MW electricity generation capacity in Nepal, 3,075.73 MW is hydropower. NEA owns 583 MW hydropower plants (18.9 percent of the total installed capacity) that generate spill energy especially during the rainy season. Similarly, NEA’s subsidiaries own 492.9 MW hydropower plants, in which the general public have invested in its equity and NEA also purchases the spill energy from these plants. Further, independent power producers (IPPs) own 1,999.77 MW hydropower plants, from which also NEA is forced to purchase spill energy. Because under the power purchase agreements (PPAs) between NEA and IPPs, the former is obliged to purchase all contracted electricity and pay for it. Normally a profit-making organization neither produces commodities that cannot be sold on its own, nor does it purchase such commodities from others. On the contrary, NEA is in an ironic position of not only generating spill energy but also purchasing same from others, and it does not have any choice but to export.
Monopsony Trap
However, India is basically a monopsony buyer with respect to export of electricity. Other goods and/or services can be exported to countries other than India. But due to geographical reasons, electricity can only be exported to India. While discussing this, it should not be forgotten that India is not a reliable and trustworthy neighboring country. Thus far, India has imposed 4 blockades on Nepal for no rhyme or reason: in 1962, 1970, 1989 and 2015. Moreover, India had imposed the last two blockades immediately after devastating earthquakes in Nepal that caused huge loss of life and property.
Electricity is also a kind of commodity, which is called an electromagnetic field, and no matter which power plant it is generated from, it cannot be distinguished during transmission, distribution and utilization as to whichever powerhouse it is generated from and, where, when and for what purpose it is being used. However, India has imposed unreasonable conditions on import of electricity from Nepal. The restriction is on the import of electricity generated by powerhouse built with Chinese investment or by Chinese contractors or using machinery, equipment, etc. produced there.
Moreover, Section 6.7.1 of the Electricity Import/Export Procedure issued by the Central Electricity Authority under the Ministry of Power of Government of India (GoI) in February 2021 stipulates that GoI reserves the right to import/export electricity from/to neighboring countries for reasons of larger policy interest, and same shall be binding on importers and exporters. That means GoI can ban electricity imports from Nepal at any time at its discretion. If this happens, NEA would be in a dire strait.
If GoI is to prohibit import of electricity from Nepal at any time using the discretionary authority mentioned above, it could lead to NEA’s bankruptcy. Because NEA can stop generating spill energy from the powerhouses it owns, which is less than 20 percent. But according to PPAs, NEA cannot refuse to buy spill energy generated by its subsidiaries and IPPs and it has no choice but to buy and pay for it. If more than 80 percent of spill energy could not be exported, NEA may face a major economic/financial crisis, including even becoming insolvent since NEA plans to export spill energy worth Rs 30 billion in current fiscal year as mentioned above. Therefore, exporting spill energy to India is a risky venture in a number of ways. Hence, efforts should be made to find alternatives to exporting electricity to unreliable and untrustworthy India, a monopsony buyer.
Export to Bangladesh
NEA, NTPC Vidyut Byapar Nigam of India and Bangladesh Power Development Board have signed a tripartite agreement to export 40 MW of electricity from Nepal to Bangladesh via India. However, since India was also a party to the agreement, India has restricted export of electricity to Bangladesh generated from powerhouses built with Chinese investment or by Chinese contractors or with machinery, equipment, etc. produced there.
Moreover, Bangladesh does not have a good track record as it has defaulted payment for electricity imported from India. Bangladesh owes $850 million to Adani Power and $23.3 million to Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.: total default amount Rs 117.895 billion. While some industries in Nepal are said to have defaulted a few billion rupees, NEA will have serious liquidity problems if a large amount of money is defaulted by Bangladesh for electricity imported from NEA.
Since NEA has started exporting to Bangladesh too, it may not be appropriate to call India a monopsony buyer any longer. However, there is no substantial difference between exporting to India and exporting to Bangladesh, since the conditions imposed by India apply on the export to Bangladesh as well.
Innovative Use of Spill Energy
Innovative technologies have developed in the world that can utilize spill energy. The Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB) used spill energy to mine Bitcoins, one of the cryptocurrencies, in 2024 and sold 367 Bitcoins; earning $33.5 million (Rs. 4.6 billion) and is holing Bitcoins worth $1 billion (Rs. 137.46 billion) in stock.
Similarly, a large quantum of electricity is required to process data and to train artificial intelligence (AI), for which spill energy can be used. Data processing and training AI is done at Data Centers.
It takes seven years for new Data Centers in Virginia, USA to have electricity connection with Dominion Energy, Inc.; a utility which supplies electricity to Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina states. This fact is not mentioned here to imply that NEA should start exporting electricity across the seven seas to some states in the USA, because electricity cannot be exported that far; not even by satellite. This scribe opines that Nepal’s spill energy should be put to alternative innovative uses that are more lucrative. Either Data Centers from the USA should be invited to Nepal or GoN itself should establish and operate Data Centers in Nepal. It has potential for an exponential quantum of revenue for GoN, compared to exporting to India and/or Bangladesh.
Cryptocurrency: Bitcoin
110,000 kWh of electricity is required to mine one Bitcoin. NEA has exported electricity that could mine one Bitcoin for merely Rs 812,900, equivalent to $5,913. But the price of a Bitcoin is now more than $100,000 (Rs 13.746 million). In other words, GoN can earn $100,000 dollars by mining Bitcoin using spill energy for which NEA receives merely $5,913 by exporting
NEA expects to export electricity worth Rs 30 billion in current fiscal year, equivalent to $218.2 million. It means approximately 4,059 GWh electricity will be exported. This amount of electricity can be used to mine more than 36,900 Bitcoins, the price of which is $3.69 billion at the rate of $100,000/Bitcoin, which is equivalent to Rs 507 billion. This amount is almost 17 times the amount NEA receives from export.
Ban on Cryptocurrencies
It should not be forgotten that Nepal Rashtra Bank has banned cryptocurrency transactions in Nepal under Section 12 of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act. Therefore, legally, the general public can neither mine nor trade Bitcoin. But this ban is not applicable on GoN. Just as the RGoB has benefited from mining Bitcoin by using spill energy, GoN too can emulate.
In Nepal gambling too is banned. However, GoN has issued licenses to 22 casinos and mini casinos in order to allow foreigners to gamble, from which GoN is earning substantial royalty revenue. Therefore, if GoN itself mines Bitcoin by taking the spill energy from NEA, the Nepal government treasury will be enriched by a magnitude.
Data Processing & AI
Just as a normal computer uses a central processing unit (CPU), data centers use 300 watts graphics processing units (GPUs). A standard mid-range data center would comprise 500 racks with 42 GPUs in each rack: in total 21,000 GPUs. Operating 1 GPUs for an hour would consume 0.3 kWh electricity. The cooling infrastructure to avoid overheating of GPUs also would consume some electricity. It is estimated that the all-inclusive cost of operating one GPU for 1 hour would be 1 kWh electricity.
GPU rate per hour in the market is $2.5 to $3.5. Nepal can charge only $1.5 for one hour’s GPU operation. In this way, if the 4,059 GWh electricity that NEA has targeted to export in this fiscal year were used in a data center, GoN could earn $6.088 billion, equivalent to Rs. 836.92 billion. Which is almost 28 times of the amount that the NEA will receive from exporting electricity.
Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani's Reliance Industries Group has recently announced that it will operate the world's largest data center in the Indian city of Jamnagar in Gujarat, which will require a very huge amount of electricity. India can use Nepal's electricity for northern India and supply electricity within India to Jamnagar. It should not be forgotten that an agreement has already been signed to export 10,000 MW to India. Before this happens, it would be prudent for Nepal to establish and operate a data center and use the electricity that would be exported.
The hardware for the data center including GPUs and server is estimated to cost $225 million and data center building $5 million. Similarly, power and cooling infrastructure is estimated to cost $10 million and networking $3 million. Total initial investment is expected to be $243 million equivalent to Rs 33.40 billion. GoN can earn Rs. 836.92 billion annually with initial investment of Rs 33.40 billion by operating a data center. While, less than 20 percent of GoN’s total budget for the current fiscal year has been allocated for capital expenditure and based on past track record actual capital expenditure is likely to be a lot less. On the other hand, Nepal’s foreign exchange reserve has reached $14.9 billion. Establishing a data center at the cost of $243 million would amount to a revolutionary (not destructive, but creative) step for the upliftment of Nepal’s economy. Also, since the necessary human resource is available in Nepal itself, there will be no difficulty in operating a data center.
Income Tax Exemption
GoN’s targeted revenue collection in the current fiscal year is Rs 1,419 billion, of which Rs 1,284 billion is tax revenue. If GoN is to use the spill energy to mine Bitcoin, GoN treasury will receive more than Rs 500 billion and if a data center is operated, the state treasury would be richer by Rs 800 billion. This kind of revenue could metamorphose Nepal’s economy. Besides, GoN can take another “creative” revolutionary step by exempting the people from income tax; maybe for people earning up to Rs 10 million/year. This would increase the purchasing power of the general public thereby arresting the downward slide of the economy or could jumpstart the economy that has stalled. People in Asian countries like Maldives and Brunei do not have to pay income tax and there is no income tax in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, etc.
Or GoN can substantially reduce the quantum of domestic and foreign debt; budget for this year is Rs 547 billion. Nepal's public debt has already reached Rs 2,434 billion and by putting spill energy to innovative uses, debt service burden on the state treasury can be reduced by a magnitude, and the same can be utilized for productive uses or social welfare.
Conclusion
When Nepali Congress leader Sushil Koirala was the Prime Minister, India had imposed an economic blockade, for no rhyme or reason, on 23rd September 2015, but most leaders of that party could not muster courage to utter the “B” word. However, KP Sharma Oli, who was appointed Prime Minister on the 12th October 2015 took a patriotic and nationalist stance and succeeded in having the blockade removed. Fortunately, the same person is now the Prime Minister. But unfortunately, the country's economy is facing serious problems. In such a situation, if PM Oli takes the initiative and utilizes the spill energy to mine Bitcoin or operate a data center, the economy will surely take an upward turn. Besides, exempting people from income tax will amount to distributing stimulus packages to the people with decreased purchasing power, suffering from Nepal’s economy that is stagnating or worse. It is earnestly hoped that such a golden opportunity will be utilized forthwith.
Published in People’s Review on February 6, 2025.
https://mypeoplesreview.com/2025/02/04/innovative-lucrative-use-of-surplus-electricity/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)