Category: Energy and Power

Millions of people worldwide now live with the adverse consequences of climate change on every single day, and Bangladesh is one of the nations most vulnerable.

Almost every year, Bangladesh experiences floods, cyclones, riverbank erosion, salinity intrusion, and erratic rainfall due to its low-lying terrain, dense population, and reliance on agriculture and rivers.

Bangladesh produces less than 0.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, which is a very small contribution. Despite this, the nation is committed to contributing to global climate action while simultaneously looking for assistance to safeguard its citizens and economy.

In this regard, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement becomes an essential instrument for Bangladesh, providing a framework that enables nations to collaborate, pool resources, and develop creative solutions to cut emissions and prepare for climate change.

Bangladesh’s climate vulnerability may be turned into a chance for resilient development and sustainable progress if Article 6 is understood and used appropriately.

The distinctive feature of Article 6 is that it establishes pathways for global cooperation via both market-based and non-market-based mechanisms.

By trading emission reductions across national borders, market mechanisms like carbon trading allow nations to fulfill a portion of their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Conversely, non-market methods may not depend on financial transactions and instead emphasize collaborative ventures, information exchange, and capacity building.

These measures are useful avenues for Bangladesh to raise funds, gain access to new technologies, and expand climate-resilient projects that benefit millions of people in vulnerable regions; they are not just theoretical regulations.

The climatic profile of Bangladesh emphasizes how urgent this collaboration is.

The Global Climate Risk Index 2024 ranks Bangladesh among the top ten countries most affected by extreme weather events. Cyclone Amphan in 2020, for example, caused massive destruction along the coastal belt, displacing hundreds of thousands of people, damaging crops, and affecting livelihoods.

Similarly, riverbank erosion annually threatens thousands of families, forcing them to relocate and lose their land and homes. Forecasts indicate that if global warming persists uncontrolled, climate-related damages might cost Bangladesh up to 9% of its GDP by 2050.

Bangladesh’s updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) seek to cut emissions by 6.73% unconditionally and up to 21.85% conditionally by 2030 in light of this.

Article 6 is a strategic weapon in the nation’s climate toolbox since achieving these goals calls for both home and foreign assistance.

Article 6.2, one of the main elements of Article 6, permits nations to implement Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) in partnerships.

In short, ITMOs allow nations to receive credits for confirmed reductions in emissions that can be applied to their climate goals.

This system can generate genuine prospects for Bangladesh. For example, switching from conventional brick kilns to greener technologies like zigzag kilns, tunnel kilns, or hybrid Hoffman kilns can drastically cut carbon emissions.

These reductions can generate income for Bangladesh that can be used to fund more climate adaptation initiatives if they are validated and traded globally.

Similarly, ITMOs can be produced by growing solar energy projects, biogas facilities, and energy-efficient industrial systems, transforming regional climate action into international collaboration.

In addition to providing financial resources, these chances hasten the adoption of contemporary technology and sustainable practices, which are essential for a nation trying to strike a balance between environmental preservation and economic growth.

The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is thought to have been replaced by the mitigation and sustainable development mechanism established in Article 6.4. Countries are able to carry out project-based emission reduction programs that produce internationally recognized credits thanks to this system.

Bangladesh stands to gain a great deal from this structure. Under this method, waste-to-energy programs, renewable energy projects, and natural solutions like Sundarbans mangrove restoration can all be eligible.

In addition to lowering emissions, these initiatives improve neighborhood resilience. Restoring mangroves along the shore, for instance, fortifies natural defenses against storm surges and cyclones, safeguarding agriculture, fisheries, and communities. Crucially, Article 6.4 highlights that mitigation strategies must support sustainable development, guaranteeing that initiatives offer co-benefits to the environment, society, and economy.

This can result in the creation of jobs for rural communities in Bangladesh, the improvement of soil and water quality, and the encouragement of inclusive growth in tandem with climate action.

A developing nation like Bangladesh may find Article 6.8’s emphasis on non-market strategies extremely beneficial. Without the need for cash transfers or carbon credits, non-market strategies promote global cooperation in fields including research, technological transfer, and capacity building.

Article 6.8 collaborations, for example, might assist Bangladesh in implementing climate-smart agriculture practices, enhancing community-based adaptation initiatives, and fortifying its early warning and climate data gathering systems. While strengthening national planning and governance capabilities, such collaboration can guarantee that adaptation initiatives reach the most vulnerable groups, including smallholder farmers, fishermen, and coastal communities.

Additionally, information exchange is encouraged by non-market channels, which are crucial for a nation looking to develop its capacity in catastrophe risk reduction, resilient infrastructure, and renewable energy. While Article 6 presents numerous prospects, successful implementation is not without obstacles.

Bangladesh has to establish comprehensive institutional structures to track, document, and validate carbon trades and emission reductions.

The country is now short of trained individuals, technological capabilities, and financing to deal with complicated carbon markets. Concerns over the fairness of market mechanisms are also widespread.

The climate advantages for vulnerable nations like Bangladesh may be limited if developed nations utilize carbon trading as a means of offsetting emissions without implementing significant domestic reductions.

Therefore, it is essential to make sure that Article 6 projects actually promote climate resilience and sustainable development. For Bangladesh, this entails giving top priority to initiatives that not only lower emissions but also safeguard ecosystems, boost social resilience, and offer real advantages to nearby populations.

In order to effectively implement Article 6, Bangladesh requires a national carbon cooperation strategy.

This entails establishing a nationwide carbon credit registry, standardizing project approval procedures, and guaranteeing open reporting to prevent duplication.

Energyefficient industrial processes, clean cooking technologies, and renewable energy can all be scaled up through public-private partnerships.

Institutional capacity will be increased by providing experienced staff, digital resources, and international assistance to government organizations like the Department of Environment (DoE) and the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

To maximize the advantages of Article 6 mechanisms, regional cooperation via SAARC and BIMSTEC platforms can also assist Bangladesh in exchanging information, gaining access to technology, and taking part in cooperative mitigation projects.

Another crucial factor is to ensure community involvement and equity. Projects under Article 6 must take into account the requirements of the most vulnerable groups impacted by climate change.

In Bangladesh, floods, cyclones, and saline intrusion frequently disproportionately affect women, children, and rural populations. Projects covered by Article 6 can enhance local ownership, provide social co-benefits, and boost the efficacy of climate initiatives by incorporating these groups in the planning and execution stages.

In order to guarantee that the advantages of climate action go beyond carbon accounting and monetary gains, community-based strategies also promote awareness, capacity building, and sustainable behavior change.

Bangladesh has already initiated actions to comply with Article 6. With assistance from foreign partners, pilot projects on carbon price, renewable energy certification, and emission accounting are being created. While making sure that emission reduction programs are in line with sustainable development aspirations, these initiatives seek to provide the groundwork for long-term involvement in global carbon markets.

The necessity of supporting Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Climate Vulnerable Nations in gaining access to capital, technology, and capability under Article 6 is another way that Bangladesh continues to promote justice and fairness in international climate negotiations.

Bangladesh has an exceptional opportunity to coordinate native climate action with international collaboration through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.

It is a bridge between aspiration and action, between vulnerability and resilience, and it is more than just a collection of technical rules.

Bangladesh can mobilize resources, embrace cutting-edge technologies, and create communities that are climate resilient through market processes, project-based cooperation, and nonmarket partnerships.

In addition, careful governance, openness, and inclusivity are necessary to guarantee that these mechanisms actually help the ecosystems and people most impacted by climate change. When properly applied, Article 6 can turn Bangladesh’s climatic problems into chances for social justice, economic expansion, and sustainable development.

In order to fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement and the aspirations of its citizens for a climate-secure country, Bangladesh can forge ahead with a greener, safer, and more prosperous future by utilizing international cooperation, encouraging local innovation, and incorporating climate resilience into all facets of development.

Bangladesh Petroleum Institute (BPI) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with five institutions to extend cooperation in the field of research, education, training, and technological development in Bangladesh’s energy and mineral resources sector.

The agreement was signed recently at the BPI headquarters, said a press release.

The five institutions are Department of Geology and Mining, University of Rajshahi; Institute of Mining, Mineralogy and Metallurgy, BCSIR; Department of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Engineering (PMRE), BUET; Bangladesh Oil, Gas and Mineral Corporation (Petrobangla) and CodersTrust Limited.

The Dhaka Electric Supply Company (DESCO), a stateowned power distribution entity, has reported losses for three consecutive years despite multiple electricity price hikes.

According to its latest audit report, the company incurred a cumulative net loss of around Tk630 crore over the past two fiscal years.

The audited financial summary for the 2024-25 fiscal year, published recently through the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE), highlights the extent of DESCO’s financial struggles. For FY2024-25, the publicly listed company recorded a post-tax net loss of Tk125.23 crore, translating to a loss per share of Tk 3.15. Due to this continued loss, the company has again decided not to issue any dividends to investors, marking the second consecutive year without shareholder returns.

In the previous fiscal year (2023-24), DESCO’s net loss was significantly higher at Tk505.56 crore, or Tk12.72 per share.

At the beginning of the 21st century, global efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C hinged entirely on achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Reaching this goal depends on ambitious emission reduction plans – and implementing those plans requires sufficient investment.

However, developed and emerging economies have still not submitted any concrete plans to reduce emissions. Moreover, along with investing in their own emission reduction, these countries do not seem to prioritize supporting others through financing either.

Instead, their main priority now appears to be increasing military and security expenditures.

As a result, obtaining climate finance from public-sector sources is becoming increasingly difficult over time.

Therefore, there is no alternative but for the global community to work collectively on alternative and innovative financing mechanisms.

In an interview with Mollah Amzad Hossain, Editor of Energy and Power, these remarks were made by Ziaul Haque, Additional Director General of the Department of Environment. COP30 is about to begin in Belém, Brazil. Which issues are likely to get priority in this global negotiation?

The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) – countries’ pledges to reduce carbon emissions – will be a top priority at the Belém COP.

However, the recently published Synthesis Report paints a rather disappointing picture.

After reviewing 64 NDCs, the report concluded that even if all are fully implemented, global emissions will only decline by 17% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels. Yet, achieving net-zero requires a 60% reduction over that same period. While the world is falling behind on the 1.5°C target, major players such as the European Union, China, and India have not yet submitted their updated NDCs.

This is extremely disappointing, but NDCs will still remain at the center of discussions.

It is also expected that the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) will be finalized at Belém.

However, ensuring that 50% of climate finance is allocated to adaptation, as developing countries have long demanded, will be difficult, given the uncertain stance of developed countries.

The issue of mobilizing USD 1.3 trillion in climate finance by 2035 will certainly receive top priority in negotiations. Defining what counts as ‘climate finance,’ and addressing debates such as grants versus loans, will also be crucial discussion points. Yet, given the changing global context, negotiations this year will likely be more complicated than ever.

The countries expected to provide funds are showing little interest in doing so.

Therefore, despite continued demands from developing nations, it is unrealistic to expect major positive decisions this time regarding funding for Loss and Damage, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), or the Adaptation Fund.

Overall, even after two deadline extensions, most countries – especially the major polluters – have failed to submit their NDCs.

This is a bad sign and amounts to ignoring the spirit of multilateral cooperation to tackle climate change impacts.

One of the Troika’s two main priorities is the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap for USD 1.3 Trillion.’ What outcomes do you expect from Belém regarding this discussion?

Discussions on this issue have been ongoing throughout the year.

The three COP Presidencies – known as the Troika – have already held ministerial-level meetings.

However, despite Brazil’s efforts, no positive response has yet emerged.

Instead, there are attempts to introduce new agendas into the climate finance discussions – such as trade restrictions. For example, the European Union’s CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) proposes imposing additional taxes on exportable products based on their carbon footprint.

But developing countries argue that such measures should be addressed under Response Measures and Just Transition frameworks.

Otherwise, climate-vulnerable nations will face new economic losses.

This is because Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement clearly states that developed countries shall provide financial resources to developing countries. Moreover, beyond developed economies, emerging economies also have an obligation to contribute to climate finance.

All of them – including LDCs and SIDS – must be supported. Yet, in climate finance negotiations, developed countries are trying to sidestep these obligations.

The Belém COP will certainly continue discussions on how to mobilize USD 1.3 trillion by 2035 from both public and private sectors.

However, it is difficult to say whether these discussions will lead to any concrete or positive outcomes.

So far, USD 779 million has been pledged to the Loss and Damage Fund.

The fund is expected to become fully operational from Belém, with calls for proposals for an initial USD 250 million allocation. Will Bangladesh submit any proposals for this funding?

Also, do you expect new funding commitments for the Loss and Damage Fund from the upcoming Leaders’ Summit?

From Belém, the Loss and Damage Fund will begin operations by inviting project proposals for distributing an initial USD 250 million to vulnerable and affected countries.

Bangladesh is currently preparing project proposals to access this fund, and they will be submitted.

However, the total amount available in the Loss and Damage Fund remains very small – even less than what was originally pledged. Meanwhile, the entire world is currently preoccupied with defense and military investments.

Therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect new pledges to the Loss and Damage Fund from the upcoming Leaders’ Summit.

To build consensus on various issues, the Brazilian COP Presidency has so far sent 15 letters to countries around the world. What kind of success do you expect from their climate diplomacy ahead of the COP30 negotiations?

Brazil has always been proactive in climate diplomacy.

However, given the current global situation, it is difficult to say how successful they will be this time.

Although Brazil is continuously working to make the Belém COP a success, no major progress has been seen yet. Despite the Brazilian Presidency’s best efforts, countries like the European Union, China, and India have not yet finalized their pollution reduction plans or NDCs.

It must be remembered that the global context right now is not in Brazil’s favor. COP30 is expected to finalize the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

The 100+ indicators identified for this need to be reduced to 100.

Additionally, there will be discussions about ensuring that 50% of the climate fund is allocated for adaptation, as per commitments.

How optimistic are you about a final decision?

It can be expected that the Global Goal on Adaptation will be finalized in Belém. More than 100 indicators can likely be reduced to 100.

However, the question lies in the means of implementation.

To achieve the GGA’s goals, three elements are essential: finance, technology transfer, and capacitybuilding support.

The big question is how positive the outcomes will be on these fronts, particularly whether sufficient financing for adaptation can be ensured.

Bangladesh has announced in its NDC 3.0 a target to reduce carbon emissions by 85 million tonnes by 2035, with an investment projection of USD 116 billion, of which USD 90 billion is expected from global sources. What strategy will Bangladesh take to achieve this?

You see, in NDC 2.0 or the upgraded NDC, there were challenges in securing global support, although our performance in implementation with domestic financing has been quite good.

But Bangladesh’s NDC 3.0 is much clearer.

It specifies what will be done with domestic investments and what with international support. We have estimated the required international assistance and are now working on project formulation accordingly, which will be presented to the global community once finalized.

The challenge, however, is that under the Paris Agreement, countries are encouraged to prioritize their own investments in emission reduction. Yet, most countries have designed their NDCs to rely heavily on international support.

The UNFCCC has published its Synthesis Report after reviewing NDCs.

It states that even if all 64 NDCs reviewed are fully implemented, global carbon emissions will decline by only 17% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels.

But the IPCC says emissions must be cut by 60% within that timeframe to reach net-zero. Where is the world heading?

Article 2 of the Paris Agreement states that carbon emissions must be stabilized.

But from the submitted NDCs, it seems countries are moving away from this goal.

The Synthesis Report shows that even if all NDCs are fully implemented, emissions will only fall by 17% by 2035 compared to 2019. Yet, achieving net-zero requires a 60% reduction by then. No country is willing to take real responsibility for cutting emissions.

The review of 64 NDCs shows that only 52% of countries have outlined financial plans for emission reduction.

The total estimated investment needed is USD 1.97 trillion, of which USD 1.07 trillion is expected from international sources.

Only USD 214 billion is projected from domestic sources, leaving USD 682 billion unaccounted for.

This is quite disappointing.

Another roadmap of the Troika is the ‘Roadmap for 1.5°C.’ Is there still a realistic chance of achieving this goal, or has the world already fallen off track?

From the Glasgow COP, countries pledged to ‘keep 1.5°C alive,’ aiming to cut emissions by 33% by 2030, with emission peaking by 2025.

However, the world backtracked at the Sharm El-Sheikh COP.

Though there was an attempt to revive the target at the Dubai COP, momentum was again lost heading into Baku.

To save the planet, the Belém discussions must bring this goal back on track.

To achieve the 1.5°C target, there is no alternative to securing sufficient investment.

This investment must come from the public sector funds of developed countries, ideally as grants.

But opportunities for such funding are shrinking, and public sector climate finance is likely to decline further in the coming years.

Therefore, the world must clearly define mechanisms for privatesector financing in climate resilience and adaptation. Private sector investments should be encouraged through clear carbon trading opportunities. Moreover, work must begin on innovative financing. For example, developed countries could impose a small tax (0.2-0.3%) on their top 10 corporations or billionaires to generate climate funds. Finally, individuals and institutions that invest charitably in climate resilience are still not formally recognized within the UNFCCC process. Recognition of such contributions must be ensured so that more individuals and organizations are encouraged to contribute.

At COP30, what key messages does Bangladesh plan to present to the global community regarding its climate resilience efforts?

At every COP, Bangladesh showcases its climate resilience achievements through its national pavilion, and this time will be no different.

However, we must also emphasize a new issue in discussions with multilateral and bilateral donors. When global institutions prepare debt-risk indices for countries, they often include disaster risks as negative factors in their ratings.

This problem will worsen once Bangladesh graduates from LDC status.

Therefore, we will highlight before the global community that Bangladesh is a climate-vulnerable country-and that this vulnerability is not our fault, but a result of global climate impacts.

Thus, during credit rating assessments, climate vulnerability should not be treated as a negative indicator.

Instead, it should be viewed positively, acknowledging our resilience and the global responsibility for this shared crisis.

The government will provide a tax exemption on both principal and interest payments related to the Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant loan to Russian state-owned company Atomstroyexport (ASE).

This exemption is a ‘special consideration’ only for this project and ‘cannot be taken as a precedent for any other project in the future.’ The National Board of Revenue (NBR) is expected to take the necessary steps to implement it, according to the Ministry of Science and Technology.

Earlier, ASE requested assurance from Russia that no taxes would be imposed on ASE or its nominated agent when repatriating the funds to Russia.

The latest national climate plans (NDCs 3.0) of developed countries expose a stark truth: those most responsible for the climate crisis are still refusing to lead its solution.

A new analysis by Climate Action Network (CAN) International finds that every developed economy fails all three tests of a fair and 1.5°C-aligned pathway – ending fossil fuel production, delivering public climate finance, and ensuring a just and equitable transition. Reviewing developed countries’ NDCs against three tests, the review found that: Instead of phasing out fossil fuels, most continue to subsidies or expand them; Instead of honoring financial commitments, they defer and dilute them. References to ‘Just Transition’ appear largely symbolic, stripped of the measures needed to protect workers, Indigenous Peoples, and communities on the frontline of change.

Among developed countries, the EU failed to submit its NDC on time, while the US submitted its NDC before withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

The EU and the US together account for over 40% of historical CO2 emissions. Nine other G20 countries did not submit their NDCs by the end of September: Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey.

Together with the EU, they account for half of the current global emissions. Given the glaring and alarming ambition gaps across developed and G20 countries, the report calls on leaders to agree to fix NDCs that are not in line with countries’ fair shares of responsibilities. Parties must commit to this at the COP30 Leaders’ Summit. Key findings from CAN’s brief Climate finance remains under-delivered: Just two developed countries (Canada and the UK) specify climate finance volumes beyond 2025, but not beyond 2027, and none outline how they will meet their fair share obligations. No country commits to increasing international adaptation finance; in fact, only Japan and the UK mention adaptation finance at all. None of the NDCs reference contributing to the UNFCCC Fund for responding to Loss and Damage. No fossil fuel phase-out: Despite the clear mandate from the UAE COP28 decision, every fossil-fuel-producing developed country omits a timeline to end coal, oil, or gas production.

Brazil and Russia, the only two other G20 countries that have submitted their NDCs, do not commit to phasing out fossil fuels. None of the countries that currently provide fossil fuel subsidies has committed to phasing them out completely.

Every country plans or is considering using carbon offsets to achieve its targets and/or unproven and risky technologies such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage, shifting the focus to reducing emissions from fossil fuel production rather than phasing out production itself.. Just transition and adaptation measures sidelined: Though references to a just transition are present across the majority of analyzed NDCs, the phrase is often mentioned only once and is not accompanied by implementation measures, the need to address inequalities, or essential concepts such as social protection, social dialogue, or decent work. For developed countries, just transition measures are too narrow, mainly focusing on skills training and green jobs. While several NDCs note consultations with Indigenous Peoples, none explicitly commit to upholding Free, Prior and Informed Consent or implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Only two countries analyzed mention Loss and Damage in their NDCs (Canada and Brazil), and each only once. What CAN is calling for at COP30 At the COP30 Leaders’ Summit, Heads of State from rich countries must publicly commit to submitting strengthened NDCs before COP31, in line with their fair shares and reflecting their legal obligations, including those affirmed by the recent climate action ruling by the International Court of Justice.

These revised NDCs must implement the guidance from the first Global Stocktake in line with equity and the fair shares of each country: Set whole-of-economy, timebound fossil fuel phase-out plans in line with a 1.5°C pathway and by 2040 at the latest for developed countries; Outline contributions to the global goals on renewable energy and energy efficiency, and measures to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030; Embed just transition and resilience-building measures that uphold human rights and enable sustainable development within planetary boundaries, while addressing inequalities both within and between countries.

In addition, developed countries should commit to providing new, additional, and grant-based finance for mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, and just transition measures, with specific details on how they plan to align with their fair shares.

Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of Climate Action Network International, said: ‘This round of NDCs is an indictment, not a plan.

The richest countries on Earth – those who built their wealth on fossil fuels – are still refusing to take responsibility for the damage they’ve caused.

They know exactly what justice requires: a time-bound fossil fuel phase-out, predictable grant-based finance, and real Just Transition measures grounded in rights and equity.

Instead, they deliver delay tactics dressed up as ambition. Without credible timelines, without money on the table, and without protection for workers and communities, these NDCs are a betrayal of 1.5°C – and of the people already living with the impacts of climate disaster.’ Jacobo Ocharan, Head of Political Strategies at Climate Action Network International, said: ‘NDCs that dodge production phase-out for fossil fuels, while leaning on offsets and risky emissions reduction technologies, are a recipe for overshoot and global climate injustice. We expect developed countries to lead with concrete end-dates for coal, oil, and gas-and to fund transitions with public, grant-based finance rather than debt and creative accounting.’ David Knecht, Climate expert at Fastenaktion Switzerland, added: ‘1.5°C-aligned NDCs are not just a technical issue about emissions reductions.

Behind every weak target and climate plan are real lives, livelihoods, and ecosystems being lost to floods, droughts, and fires. Communities all over the world-especially communities in remote areas, Indigenous Peoples, women, and workers-are already suffering from delayed action. Climate plans must be centered around people and nature, not preserving the profits of the polluters that caused this crisis.’

A consortium comprising Mitsubishi Power, a power solutions brand of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (MHI) and Jurong Engineering Limited (JEL) has been awarded an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction (EPC) contract by PacificLight Power Pte. Ltd. (PLP) to develop the largest, high efficiency combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) facility in Singapore.

The power plant will be the first CCGT unit in Singapore integrated with a large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS), enabling dynamic energy management to align electricity supply with grid demand. Located on Jurong Island, Singapore, the 670MW facility, capable of powering more than 965,000 four-room flats, is scheduled to begin operations in 2029.

It will have the ability to operate on 30% hydrogen and will be capable of shifting to run entirely on hydrogen in future.

The new CCGT power plant will deploy Mitsubishi Power’s state-of-the-art M701JAC gas turbine with hydrogen cofiring potential, as the power sector works towards net zero carbon emissions.

Bangladesh’s climate action pledges, outlined in the third Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC 3.0) under the Paris Agreement, have set a global precedent by embedding just transition principles at the heart of the country’s national climate strategy, the International Labour Organization (ILO) has said. ‘Submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on 30 September, Bangladesh’s climate strategy for the first time incorporates just transition to ensure that the shift to environmentally sustainable and low-carbon economies is job-rich, genderresponsive, and inclusive – leaving no one behind,’ the ILO said in a statement.

This approach emphasizes maximizing the social and economic opportunities of climate and environmental action-such as green jobs-while minimizing and carefully managing any arising challenges through effective social dialogue and stakeholder engagement.

F rom both an energy efficiency and methane (CH4 ) emission reduction standpoint, Bangladesh’s gas supply chain has now become critically important. Methane is emitted from gas fields at the wellhead, from treatment plants, and through flaring in gas transmission and distribution systems. Petrobangla companies routinely monitor losses and emissions as part of their operations and maintenance, but credible reports suggest that significant methane leakage occurs across the entire gas supply chain.

If these fugitive emissions were professionally audited, identified, and fixed, Bangladesh could save valuable gas currently being wasted-while also cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

At present, the gas system faces a deficit of about 1,200 million cubic feet per day (MMCFD), and the gap continues to widen.

According to Petrobangla, total demand stands at roughly 4,000 MMCFD, while maximum supply, including 1,050 MMCFD of imported LNG, reaches only about 2,800 MMCFD.

Experts believe that a comprehensive audit of the gas supply chain-from production to transmission and distribution-could identify sources of leakage and loss.

Effective remediation could save as much as 200 MMCFD of gas, easing pressure on the overstressed system while reducing environmental degradation caused by methane emissions.

Such an audit could be conducted by the Energy Auditors of the Bangladesh Energy Regulatory Commission (BERC), or a joint team from BERC and the Department of Environment (DOE). Gas fields in Bangladesh are operated by Petrobangla subsidiaries – BGFCL, BAPEX, and SGFL – as well as two international oil companies (IOCs), Chevron and Tullow.

Every gas field flares gas as part of its system operation, though the technology used varies widely – from outdated setups to more modern systems.

A gas system expert visiting Bangladesh’s gas fields would notice differences in flare color and composition, suggesting variations in methane loss.

Some fields may be emitting more than the allowable threshold, which could be reduced through modernized treatment facilities.

This would not only save gas but also significantly curb methane emissions. While DOE is expected to set parameters for gas flaring, it remains unclear whether these are consistently monitored.

The operational standards of IOCs and Petrobangla companies differ greatly – IOCs typically follow strict operational protocols and rigorous monitoring, while Petrobangla entities often lag behind.

This is not to discredit Petrobangla, but some of its plants, such as those at Beanibazar, Koillashtilla, and Bakhrabad, still operate with outdated technology.

These facilities were designed decades ago based on the gas composition of virgin wells.

Over time, the gas composition, as well as water and condensate ratios, have changed, likely increasing methane loss. For instance, the flares at Beanibazar and KTTL-2 show signs of higher methane emissions, though it’s unclear whether the flared gas composition is regularly analyzed.

Therefore, a comparative case study between an IOC-operated and a Petrobangla-operated field could yield valuable insights.

The Gas Transmission Company Ltd. (GTCL) is responsible for transporting gas from the fields to designated custody transfer metering (CTM) stations.

These meters should be regularly calibrated, and the quality and composition of delivered gas monitored through online or mobile chromatographs, something audit teams can verify.

The GTCL network ideally should include smart meters, a fully functional SCADA system, and leak detection devices.

Smart cathodic protection systems would further ensure network integrity.

Aside from metering inaccuracies, the transmission system should have minimal gas losses. GTCL delivers gas to distribution companies through CTM stations, but it is uncertain whether all interfaces between transmission and distribution systems have modern metering systems.

An audit could review these arrangements and help resolve long-standing disputes over metering accuracy once and for all, aligning Bangladesh’s practices with global standards.

However, the major sources of leakage and loss lie within the distribution networks. Much of this stems from aging infrastructure built in the 1970s through the 1990s.

Other losses result from illegal connections and pilferage.

There are widespread allegations of thousands of unauthorized gas taps. Despite regular disconnection drives, companies such as TGTDCL, KGDCL, and BGDCL struggle to control illegal usage. Distribution companies should adopt digital mapping and GIS-based monitoring to strengthen oversight.

The Energy and Mineral Resources Division (EMRD) and Petrobangla must also seriously consider phasing out gas pipelines in densely populated city areas such as Greater Dhaka and Chattogram, where leak risks are high. Within the next two to three years, Bangladesh should fully transition domestic and commercial consumers to LPG, even if subsidies are required.

The country simply cannot afford to waste gas-especially imported LNG-when the economy is under strain. Moreover, deteriorating gas networks not only leak methane but also pose safety hazards, causing fires and explosions. Conclusion Bangladesh’s gas supply system cannot expect major improvement in the near term, even with renewed exploration efforts.

Supply from existing fields is rapidly declining, and Petrobangla’s exploration work has yet to yield encouraging results.

Increasing LNG imports before 2029-2030 also appears unlikely, while potential offshore exploration, even if initiated in 2026 or 2027, may take eight to nine years to deliver results.

In this scenario, saving 200-250 MMCFD of gas through coordinated action would be like finding an oasis in a desert.

The interim government should make it a priority to commission a comprehensive gas system audit before leaving office.

The EMRD and DOE should form a highpowered team to identify losses, pilferage, and methane leaks, and then implement an emergency action plan to fix them.

Bangladesh may not be able to produce new gas overnight, but it can certainly save what is already being lost.

That, too, would be a meaningful step toward energy efficiency, environmental protection, and national resilience.

Japan’s new PM Sanae Takaichi is expected to push for the accelerated revival of nuclear power to tackle inflation, a source of public discontent, with reactor restarts key to reducing costly fuel imports.

Takaichi has appointed Ryosei Akazawa, who was Japan’s point person in its recent tariff deal with the US, as trade and industry minister – a portfolio that includes energy – signalling a willingness to engage with Washington, including on liquefied natural gas purchases, analysts said.

Her government plans a package of purchases to present to US President Donald Trump during his visit to Tokyo soon, including LNG, although not for now from the Alaskan pipeline project championed by Trump.

However, Akazawa said recently that it was essential to maximize power sources that contribute to energy security and decarbonization. ‘We aim to proceed with nuclear restarts while taking concrete steps to gain the necessary understanding of local communities and stakeholders,’ he said. Japan spent 10.7 trillion yen ($71 billion) last year on imported LNG and coal, a tenth of its import costs.