Bangladesh stands at a crossroads, facing a critical decision that could shape its energy future for decades. The Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) has sounded a stark warning: the country’s draft Energy and Power Sector Master Plan (EPSMP) risks trapping Bangladesh in a costly and environmentally damaging reliance on fossil fuels. But here’s where it gets controversial—CPD argues that this plan is less about meeting Bangladesh’s long-term energy needs and more about bureaucratic inertia and vested interests. Could this be a missed opportunity to embrace a cleaner, more sustainable future?
In a media briefing held on January 15th, CPD Research Director Khondaker Golam Moazzem highlighted the plan’s fundamental flaws. He described it as a non-inclusive, backward-looking document that prioritizes domestic coal under the guise of 'resource optimization' while sidelining renewable energy. And this is the part most people miss—the plan proposes a staggering 60,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity capacity, far exceeding what Bangladesh is likely to need by 2040. Moazzem questioned, 'Who will consume this much power, especially when the country’s industrial growth is projected to remain service-oriented and low in energy intensity?'
CPD’s analysis suggests that half of the proposed capacity would suffice, making the plan a recipe for excess capacity and financial strain on the power sector. The think tank urges the interim government to halt the EPSMP’s formulation until after the national elections, allowing an elected government to spearhead a more inclusive and forward-thinking approach. But here’s the kicker—CPD hints that foreign partners and domestic energy lobbies, particularly those pushing for liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, may have unduly influenced the plan.
Helen Mashiyat Preoty, a senior research associate at CPD, pointed out another glaring oversight: the draft’s lack of focus on grid modernization. The plan delays smart grid implementation until 2040, despite the existing grid’s inability to handle more than 20% variable renewable energy. This raises a critical question: Is Bangladesh being steered away from renewable energy solutions that could offer both economic and environmental benefits?
The plan’s renewed emphasis on fossil fuels, particularly coal and LNG, has sparked further concern. It proposes doubling coal-based power generation capacity from 6.8GW to 12.9GW and prioritizes new LNG terminals. Preoty warned, 'These investments are not only expensive but also jeopardize long-term energy security.' CPD recommends a bold shift—scrapping new coal plants, phasing out existing coal capacity, halting LNG terminal projects, and redirecting funds toward domestic gas exploration and renewable energy.
Renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, should be at the heart of Bangladesh’s strategy, CPD argues. The plan should focus on high-potential regions like Chattogram and explore regional renewable energy trade, including imports from Nepal and Bhutan—opportunities largely ignored in the current draft. But here’s the controversial question: Are policymakers prioritizing short-term gains over long-term sustainability? And if so, what does this mean for Bangladesh’s future?
As the debate heats up, CPD’s call for a rethink couldn’t be timelier. The organization invites everyone to consider: Is this plan truly in Bangladesh’s best interest, or is it a detour from a greener, more sustainable path? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the nation’s energy future.
