Whether through the state budget or through electricity bills, it will ultimately be consumers - mostly households and businesses - who foot the bill. The real question is how to ensure the process is transparent, fair, and minimizes harm. The most reasonable approach is for EVN to disclose every cost clearly.

I still vividly remember the tense expression on an EVN executive’s face during the scorching summer of 2023. That year, northern Vietnam faced widespread rolling blackouts, some unannounced. Production halted, and public complaints surged.

The causes were manifold: hydropower reservoirs dried up due to drought, available generation capacity plummeted, and demand spiked amid intense heatwaves. No new large-scale power sources were available in the North to compensate.

To prevent system collapse, EVN had to burn oil - an expensive last resort. Each kilowatt-hour (kWh) of oil-generated electricity cost more than 5,000 VND (about $0.21), while the retail price was capped at roughly 1,800 VND (about $0.08).

At the time, the EVN executive candidly admitted: “If we don’t raise electricity prices, we’re eroding state capital - effectively the people’s and the nation’s resources.”

EVN’s losses exceed $3.8 billion

Between 2022 and 2023, EVN likely accumulated more than 93 trillion VND (around $3.84 billion) in losses. Although it recorded a profit in 2024, approximately 44–45 trillion VND (roughly $1.8 billion) remains unresolved.

EVN attributes these losses to surging fuel prices, declining hydropower output, artificially suppressed retail prices, and obligations to maintain social equity.

To be clear, this isn’t a matter of poor management - it’s a “policy-induced loss,” stemming from costs that were intentionally excluded from electricity pricing in order to maintain macroeconomic stability. The State Audit of Vietnam has confirmed this interpretation.

Who pays the price?

The answer is unequivocal: electricity consumers - primarily households and businesses.

A draft amendment to Decree 72 allows EVN to gradually incorporate these excluded costs into retail electricity prices. According to the Ministry of Industry and Trade, this could raise average prices by 2–5%, meaning consumers will pay off the losses over time through their bills.

No matter the route - via the budget or monthly bills - it is still the people who pay.

The key is how to do so transparently, equitably, and with the least impact.

The most reasonable solution is for EVN to make all costs public. Welfare-related costs, such as subsidies for low-income and policy-prioritized households, should be covered by the state budget as a matter of public policy. Business-related electricity costs should be included in pricing, phased in gradually to avoid shocks. Vulnerable groups should be protected through tiered pricing.

This approach would resolve the $1.8 billion “debt” while encouraging investment in new energy sources and grid expansion. If authorities avoid making hard decisions now, society will eventually face an even costlier bill: widespread power outages.

When EVN lacks capital to invest in generation or transmission, production stalls and residents face blackouts - a cost far greater than any price hike on an electricity bill.

EVN must be profitable to reinvest

As a wholly state-owned enterprise, EVN is responsible for safeguarding and growing public capital.

Looking ahead, the group is tasked with executing several large-scale, urgent projects, including the Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant, Quang Trach LNG plants 2 and 3, the Bac Ai pumped-storage hydropower project, expanded hydropower plants, and offshore wind projects. These developments will require substantial investment.

In recent years, EVN has had to slash investments, maintenance, and grid operations to offset deficits. But this can’t continue - overloads and outages will only increase.

To enable profitability and reinvestment, the formula must be clear: accurate cost accounting, full cost recovery, timely adjustments, and fair allocation.

Electricity prices must reflect real costs, especially for transmission and distribution. The government should implement a two-component pricing model, reduce cross-subsidies, and ensure prices can adjust both upward and downward in line with the market. There must also be a clear distinction between “commercial” and “policy-based” pricing.

It is time to state clearly: consumers - mainly households and businesses - will pay EVN’s $1.8 billion loss.

But the government must be accountable for designing a transparent, fair roadmap that minimizes public burden. In return, consumers deserve reliable electricity - a foundation for economic activity and everyday life.

At the same time, EVN must improve service quality, especially communication. Instead of threatening punitive action against those who voice concerns online, it must listen and engage with the public more constructively.

Tu Giang