Nepal has total of 83,000 MW of hydropower generating capacity is a pure misnomer. If we choose to develop a reservoir-based project there is virtually no limit. There are at least two dozen big rivers which create two hundred metre headwork when they travel as little as ten to fifteen kilometres downstream.  Only Karnali, if we dam it at about a dozen right points is likely to produce almost half of this amount. If we are to follow the proposed Budhi Gandaki model where some twenty eight thousand people will be displaced, only tributaries like Trishuli can contribute significantly given that we decide to submerge a large inhabited area. This is just an argument though. But point here is Nepal, as a nation doesn’t even have the data on mere theoretical potential of our hydropower capabilities, despite so much of technological and scientific advancement in the world and our flock of planning experts drawing heavy pay-cheques every month.

 

Not only that, we don’t know the exact demand situations in alternative scenarios of power-intensive industrialization, increased consumption and replacement of the cooking and transportation fuel by the electricity. Industrialization with many cement factories (which is a real potential in Nepal) fertilizer or heavy mining will present completely a different scenario from the one if we just focus on lighting the residential houses. It is just an example to suggest that anything we are debating is not based on data or facts. And the country, which should have formulated a viable hydropower master plan by now hasn’t even strived for one.

 

Therefore, the entire area is now the paradise of the novices, crooks and rent-seekers. There is another lot that enjoys a lot to engage in the luxury of round-table debates. Recently, there are on-going debates in the media whether we should follow Bhutan model, Lao Model or the model of our own. All this is ridiculous. All these exercises are so superfluous because, neither they are based on any fact as we don’t have anything credible available, nor are such debates going to produce any productive outcome.

 

First, there are gaps that need to be addressed. Everybody is talking about power generation but nobody even mentions about the transmission and distribution. Who will finance these projects? Is it the public sector responsibility? Apart from a regular perspective on accessibility to electricity, this involves a great amount of social research like on the patterns of existing settlements, migration and urbanization.  

 

The amount of energy and time we are spending on the issues like power trade is also not necessary to that extent. If we create environment for virtuous cycle of investment and industrialization, all the electricity we produce in next two decades might be needed for our domestic use. Once we have the excess, then we can think of export or trade.

There is a dual responsibility of the political leadership. First, they must withdraw their cadres from the power development sites so that electricity could be produced first. And also, it is their responsibility to steer the technocracy to devise a feasible, both medium-and long-term master plan for the entire energy sector. Second, the sloganeering for ‘domestic consumption first’ remains hollow until and unless the political leadership creates a conducive business climate so that not only the demand of electricity would increase but entire economy transcends to a higher level of efficiency and equity sharing ring.

 

The most pragmatic approach could be to first articulate our real hydropower potentials in different scenarios, including the climate change, second to devise a master plan and third to create a business climate that is not always victim of political force majeure. Then we can think of whether we should trade, consume or waste the produced hydropower.