It baffles many of us why we have failed to sign even a single treaty with India to sell power ("Trading Power", #108)? Isn't India a power hungry country? For example, even when it adds about 5,000 MW of capacity every year (i.e. equivalent to thirty five Kali Gandaki size power plants), its generation has always been below peak demand.

One reason, perhaps, may be that for India buying a few hundred megawatts from Nepal merely to supplement its electricity need, is not an issue worth considering. Let's not forget India too has huge potential to generate power from its own hydro resources, the estimated potential of which is about 86,000 MW (same as Nepal's). It is currently developing a number of hydro plants of a total capacity of 15,000 MW. Besides hydropower, India can always rely on its vast coal resources to generate cheap power. The country is the third largest coal producer in the world. Moreover, the country also has options to import gas either from Iran or from newly discovered gas fields in Bangladesh. Hence, it is not surprising if India looks for a deal which has benefits of having more than cheap power.

Sameer Shrestha,
by email

. The answer to the question Binod Bhattarai poses in his article about hydropower trading between Nepal and India ("Northern India is starved of energy. Nepal now has surplus supply. And yet the two can't agree. Why not?") is self-evident. India has a power deficit running into thousands of megawatts in the peak demand season. Nepal's excess this monsoon is only 150 megawatts. And all we have done is talk about our great hydropower wealth, while the Indians want the power at Bhutan's prices. Until both countries get out of their dog-in-the-manger attitude, and realise that there has to be a mutually beneficial and fair deal, the citizens of both countries will suffer.

Sonam Lama,
Kathmandu