Himanshu Bhandary
I am writing regarding the article published on May 14 by Amaan Aftab Farooqui, titled "Nepal National Budget: Energy & Climate Policy Recommendations." The piece raises important points about Nepal's import dependence and clean energy transition, and I believe the underlying argument is highly worth making. That said, I came across a few numerical claims that do not quite line up with official data, and I felt it was worth flagging them directly rather than simply leaving a comment.
Here are the specific concerns:
1. Petroleum Import Figure (Rs. 480 billion, ~10% of GDP)
The article states that Nepal imports petroleum worth Rs. 480 billion annually. However, official customs data puts this figure considerably lower—Rs. 337.34 billion in FY 2023/24 (as reported by The Kathmandu Post, citing the Department of Customs), which actually fell further to Rs. 274.27 billion in FY 2024/25 (The Annapurna Express). The Rs. 480 billion figure appears to have no traceable official source, and using it overstates the import burden by roughly 40% to 75%. While the policy concern is entirely legitimate either way, using an inflated figure could undermine the article's credibility if cited elsewhere.
2. "60% of households relying on imported cooking gas"
This figure appears to be accurate for urban areas specifically, but the national picture is quite different. Data from the Water and Energy Commission Secretariat (WECS) from 2022 puts national LPG household usage at around 33%, with fuelwood still serving as the primary energy source for over 84% of households nationwide. Presenting an urban-only figure as a national statistic misrepresents Nepal's actual energy poverty profile—which, if anything, makes the case for clean cooking interventions even stronger.
3. The Live NEA Dashboard vs. the Article's Cited Peak Demand
This is a minor but striking inconsistency visible on your own website. The real-time Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) energy data displayed at the top of the page on May 16 showed a peak demand of 2,151 MW, while the article cites an "8.8 GW peak (2023)" in its data table. Because 8.8 GW is approximately four times Nepal's actual grid scale, this appears to be a misread or misattributed figure.
I want to be clear that I am not raising these points to embarrass the author or the publication. Policy writing by students and early-career researchers is incredibly valuable, and the broad thrust of the article's recommendations on green hydrogen, Dailekh methane, and carbon trading is well-structured. However, given that this piece is positioned as a budget recommendation to be taken seriously by policymakers and readers, the accuracy of the underlying data matters quite a bit.
A factual correction or an editor's note regarding the petroleum import figure and the household LPG statistic would go a long way in maintaining the article's usefulness as a credible reference.
Article link: https://urjakhabar.com/en/news/1405564835
Submitted by: Himanshu Bhandary
Email: [email protected]
