Key Points
Bangladesh’s National Review Committee found “egregious anomalies” in the Adani Power supply agreement, flagging inflated costs on end-users.
The panel says Bangladesh is paying about 50% above benchmark rates in some cases, contributing to billions in annual losses and subsidies.
Officials have recommended international arbitration and further anti-corruption investigations as scrutiny of past energy deals widens.
The National Review Committee (NRC) of Bangladesh, on 20 January 2026, published a report identifying “egregious anomalies” in several long-term electricity supply contracts, including a major power import agreement with India’s Adani Group. The report flagged inflated costs of electricity being supplied by Adani Power, which it attributed to the conglomerate passing on corporate taxes to end-users.
The NRC on Power Purchase Agreements, formed in September 2024, has been examining contracts concluded during the tenure of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted from office in August 2024 following weeks of student-led protests. At a press conference, committee members recommended that Bangladesh approach an international arbitration tribunal in Singapore to seek annulment of the Adani agreement, terming scrutiny of the contract “essential.”
Adani Power, a subsidiary of the Adani Group, exports electricity to Bangladesh from a 1,600-megawatt coal-fired plant in Godda, Jharkhand, under a 25-year agreement signed in 2017. The plant, comprising two 800-megawatt units, supplies around 10% of Bangladesh’s baseload demand of about 13 gigawatts for a population of roughly 170 million. Dhaka pays about $1 billion annually under the contract.
The NRC said the Bangladesh Power Development Board (BPDB) was paying “4-5 cents more” per unit for Adani Power compared with electricity imported from other Indian sources, translating to prices roughly 50% above reasonable benchmarks. It also alleged that BPDB bore most fuel, currency, and demand risks under the contract structure.
In its report, the panel stated that BPDB losses reached up to $4.13 billion in 2024–25, while broader annual subsidies in the power sector have approached $5 billion. It warned that if contracted prices are not reduced, tariffs to industry and consumers could have to rise by 86%, threatening Bangladesh’s industrial competitiveness, particularly in the garment sector, which accounts for about 80% of export earnings and employs around 4 million people.
The review argued that “overpricing is a deliberate outcome of contract design,” suggesting “systematic collusion between businesses, politicians and bureaucrats” to secure excess profits. It described the Adani import deal as a prominent example of “rent extraction” embedded in contracts approved under emergency legislation by the Awami League.
NRC members also said they had uncovered details of alleged illegal transactions involving several individuals linked to the Adani agreement, forwarding the matter to the country’s Anti-Corruption Commission for investigation.
Adani Power said it had not seen the report but maintained that it supplies “reliable, high-quality and amongst the most competitively priced” power. A spokesperson added that the company had continued to honour supply commitments “despite large receivables” and urged Bangladesh to settle outstanding dues. Power flows had been cut back in late 2024 over payment delays but later stabilised.
Beyond Adani, the committee highlighted other projects as “examples of egregious anomalies,” including those involving Summit Group, S Alam Group, and a plant developed by Reliance Power and Japan’s Jera. Summit Group said allegations were “entirely speculative,” while S Alam, Reliance Power and Jera did not immediately comment.
A detailed examination of the S Alam-linked SS Power project in Chattogram described it as a “capacity trap.” Though the plant has two 660-megawatt units, the power purchase agreement covered one unit, yet both were merged on paper, creating a large financial obligation. The contract requires a fixed monthly capacity payment of $35.7 million, amounting to $428 million annually, regardless of actual electricity dispatch. Over 25 years, fixed capacity charges alone could exceed $10.6 billion, excluding inflation.
The review noted that SS Power’s tariff structure was used as a benchmark in negotiations with Adani in 2017, despite SS Power itself being priced at the higher end of the coal-based spectrum. It pointed to higher reference coal prices, freight formula gaps, and clauses mandating dollar availability within six business days, giving the investor priority access to foreign currency reserves.
Installed power capacity in Bangladesh has expanded more than fivefold since 2009, but utilisation remains at about 40% to 50%. The review estimated that the country has accumulated 7.7 to 9.5 gigawatts of excess capacity, much of it under “take or pay” arrangements.
With general elections approaching, observers say any incoming government may face strong public pressure to act on allegedly overpriced and corruption-linked power deals, even as renegotiation could trigger international arbitration. The NRC has urged decisive action, arguing that the long-term costs of inaction outweigh potential legal risks.
[DS]
Suggested Reading:
