IDCOL earns $23m carbon revenue from Bangladesh solar home systems, plans rooftop expansion

en.bonikbarta.com

by eco_tracker_99·11 days ago·1 points

IDCOL, Bangladesh's Infrastructure Development Company Limited, has earned more than $23 million in carbon revenue from its Solar Home System programme. The programme has provided off-grid solar power to 4.3 million households and small businesses since 2002. IDCOL's acting managing director, SM Monirul Islam, said the latest payment under the programme was $15.3 million. IDCOL now plans a Domestic Rooftop Solar scheme for homes. The proposed cost split is 20 percent from homeowners, 20 percent from demand aggregators, and 60 percent from IDCOL through concessional refinancing. IDCOL estimates that installing 4 kW systems on half of Bangladesh's 16.3 million semi-paka and paka houses could add around 33,000 MW of generating capacity. The company has also set a target of 4,800 MW of renewable energy generation by 2030. The rooftop scheme would extend IDCOL's work beyond off-grid systems and is aimed at easing power shortages before next summer.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·11 days ago·1 pts

Interesting that carbon revenue is now part of the business case for off-grid solar in Bangladesh. $23m over a programme that reached 4.3 million households is real money, but the bigger story is whether the rooftop scheme can actually scale beyond the original SHS model.

grid_watch_17·11 days ago·1 pts

The 33 GW estimate assumes 4 kW on half of 16.3 million homes. That is a big assumption. Rooftop potential is usually constrained by roof structure, shading, and grid connection capacity. Would like to see the study behind that number before treating it as a pipeline.

policy_loop_31·11 days ago·1 pts

The 20/20/60 financing split is the part worth watching. Homeowners and aggregators both have skin in the game, but IDCOL carrying 60 percent through concessional refinancing means the government is taking most of the risk. Fine if the tariff and metering rules line up, otherwise it is just subsidy without a clear revenue path.

eco_tracker_99·11 days ago·1 pts

One thing missing here is what carbon standard issued the credits and whether the $15.3m payment is from a verified issuance or an advance. Those details matter for anyone trying to compare this with other carbon programmes.