Er.energyNP@Gmail.com

Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) has issued a new tender for power import from India, setting a rate against the previous Board decision, as reported by leading energy website Jalsarokar.com.

The Managing Director of NEA, Hitendra Dev Shakya, has once again initiated the tender process for importing electricity from India, despite the earlier decision of the Board of Directors.

The decision to extend the bid submission deadline for a tender inviting imports of 100 megawatts of electricity from India by five days has caused controversy. Tharkabahadur Thapa, Director of the Power Trade Department at NEA, unilaterally signed and issued a notice for the extension, titled “Time Extension for Submission of Bids for Purchase up to 100 MW RTC Power by NEA from 1 April 2026 to 31 May 2026,” while the original deadline was still in effect.

It has been revealed that the extension decision was made at the departmental level by Director Thapa, without the approval of the Authority’s Board of Directors. The Board had initially announced a 10-day deadline for the tender, but the deadline was extended before the completion of the stipulated 10 days and even before the original deadline expired.

Under prevailing public procurement laws, extending a bid deadline before its expiration is considered legally complex. Generally, such an extension requires a formal decision by the Authority’s Board of Directors. In this case, the extension was granted at the departmental level without an additional decision by the Board.

Violation of Procedure or Administrative Necessity?

Experts in the energy sector suggest that extending a deadline before it expires, especially if a clear 10-day deadline was initially set by the Board, could be considered procedurally improper.

A former administrator noted that while extending a deadline before it expires is not a common practice, it may be permissible under special circumstances with clear justification and approval from a higher authority.

On the other hand, sources close to the Authority argue that the deadline extension was an administrative decision aimed at facilitating the process. They claim that in the absence of any bids, such a step may have been necessary to ensure competition within the specified timeframe.

A Tender Already Under Dispute

The tender in question has been controversial from the outset. Despite the Board's policy of determining prices through competition without setting a rate, the tender was announced with a 'ceiling rate' of 6.90 Indian rupees, established at the executive director level.

Previously, a similar tender with the same rate cap failed to attract any participants. Now, with the repetition of the same approach and questions surrounding the deadline extension process, internal debates within the Authority have intensified regarding decision-making procedures and jurisdiction.

What Are the Legal Risks?

Experts caution that if it is confirmed that the deadline extension was carried out at the departmental level against the explicit decision of the Board, the entire tender process could be vulnerable to future legal challenges.

Public procurement processes are mandated to be transparent and lawful by the constitution. If the procedure itself is called into question, participating companies may seek legal recourse.

Authority’s Response?

Attempts to contact Director Tharkabahadur Thapa of the Power Trade Department for comment were unsuccessful.

What Happens Next?

If no proposals are received by February 27, it remains unclear whether the Authority will remove the rate cap or initiate a new process.

However, the current debate is not just about the rate cap—it concerns adherence to policy, authority, and legal procedures within the Authority itself.

This controversy over decision-making in a sensitive matter such as energy supply signals a test of institutional credibility and transparency.

In a meeting held last Poush (mid-December/January), the NEA Board had decided not to set a rate ceiling in the tender for electricity imports from India. However, Shakya issued a tender on January 19 with a landed rate of NPR equivalent to INR 6.90 per unit for the period February 2026 to March 2026, and not exceeding INR 6.90 per unit for April 2026 to May 2026.

No company participated in that tender. Shakya had claimed that Indian companies were willing to supply electricity at INR 6.60 per unit and had publicly accused his predecessor, Manoj Silwal, of agreeing to purchase electricity at a higher rate.Silwal had signed an agreement to purchase 100 MW of electricity at INR 6.95 per unit. However, that agreement was not implemented because, during his own tenure as Executive Director, Shakya had concealed and failed to implement the Board’s decision, forcing the Authority to issue a new tender. Instead of executing the decision, Shakya had left for France.

After the Gen Z movement, a new government was established with Kulman Ghising as the Minister of Energy. Ghising appointed Silwal as the Executive Director of NEA and reassigned Shakya to the Water and Energy Commission.

Following the Board's decision, Silwal tried to negotiate with PTC India for a rate of INR 6.74 per unit, but the company declined. Eventually, an agreement was reached at INR 6.95 per unit, and NEA is currently receiving electricity at that rate.

During Shakya's term as Executive Director, the Board had decided on September 1 to import electricity from India at INR 6.65 per unit, but Shakya did not implement this decision and kept it undisclosed.

To cover up his error, Shakya promoted on social media (Facebook) that electricity had been procured at INR 6.74 per unit instead of INR 6.65.

With no companies showing interest in the January 19 tender, the new tender has set a maximum rate of INR 6.90 per unit. If Indian companies participate this time, Shakya may argue that electricity for the upcoming months of April-May cannot be secured below INR 6.90 per unit.

Previously, NEA faced challenges with lack of participation and controversy when setting a rate ceiling in a tender. The decision to repeat this approach has raised concerns about policy clarity and implementation.

NEA has issued a call for sealed bids to import up to 100 MW of electricity from India for April and May 2026, with a maximum rate of INR 6.90 per unit.

The electricity will be procured on a round-the-clock basis from April 1 to May 31, 2026. Bidders can submit proposals in multiples of 25 MW (25, 50, 75, or 100 MW). However, setting a maximum ceiling rate instead of allowing market competition to determine the price has raised questions about transparency and competitiveness.

Delivery Point: Muzaffarpur

Electricity will be delivered at the 400 kV busbar of the Muzaffarpur Substation in Bihar via the Muzaffarpur–Dhalkebar 400 kV transmission line.

The tender notice was issued on February 13, 2026. The deadline for bid submission is February 22, 2026, at 12:00 PM, with bid opening at 2:00 PM on the same day.

Questions on Decision Implementation

The decision to repeat the controversial model of fixing rates in the tender has brought attention to discrepancies between policy decisions and their execution within NEA.

The main question now is:

If the Board had decided against setting a rate ceiling, why did Shakya choose to follow the same contentious approach?