The question is how it should be paid in the most transparent, fair, and least damaging way.

I still remember vividly the tense face of an EVN’s leader in the summer of 2023, a truly fiery summer. At that time, northern cities and provinces had to experience rotating power cuts; some places lost power without notice, businesses stalled production, and people complained everywhere.

Many cases were cited: hydropower was depleted due to drought, usable capacity decreased, while the intense summer heat caused electricity demand to surge. The north had no new large power sources in time to supplement.

To keep the system from collapsing, the power sector had to burn oil to generate electricity, and the more it burned, the more losses it incurred. The cost to produce one kwh from oil was over VND5,000 dong, but sold for only about 1,800 dong.

The power sector leader at that time said: “If we do not raise electricity prices, we are losing state capital, which means losing the resources of people, and the country.”

In 2022 - 2023, EVN accumulated over VND93,000 billion in losses. After a profitable 2024, about VND44,000-45,000 billion remains unrecovered, now becoming a “debt” hanging over the system.

EVN explained that the losses were due to surging fuel prices, reduced hydropower output, capped retail prices below production costs, and added social responsibilities.

In other words, the loss was not due to poor performance and management, but it was a kind of ‘policy loss’, which means that not all costs were included when calculating retail electricity prices to maintain macroeconomic stability. The state audit reviewed and confirmed this situation.

Who will pay?

The answer is very clear: electricity users (mostly people and businesses).

The draft amendment to Decree 72 allows gradual allocation of unaccounted costs into retail electricity prices. The Ministry of Industry and Trade forecasted that under the allocation process implemented according to the roadmap, the average price increase will only be about 2-5 percent. That means, through monthly bills, users will slowly shoulder the burden of those past losses.

Whether via the state budget or electricity bills, users still end up paying.

The key issue is how to ensure the process is transparent, fair, and causes the least damage.

The most reasonable solution is that EVN must make every cost public.

Welfare-related support, for poor households or policy beneficiaries, should be funded by the state budget, as per public policy principles.

Meanwhile, the costs related to production and business should be included in electricity pricing, rolled out gradually to avoid shocks, while protecting vulnerable groups through tiered pricing for basic consumption.

If done so, we can both dissolve the 45 trillion "debt lump", and encourage investment in new electricity generation sources and electricity transmission projects. If not, society will have to pay with another type of bill that is even more expensive: the ‘power outage bill’.

When EVN lacks money, it cannot invest in new sources and new grids, while businesses have to stop production, and people live without electricity. That price is larger than any increase in electricity bills.

EVN must make profit to reinvest

A state corporation with 100 percent state capital like EVN has the responsibility to preserve and develop capital.

In the coming time, EVN will implement large-scale, important, urgent projects such as Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant project, Quang Trach 2&3 LNG gas power plant, Bac Ai pumped storage hydropower plant, expanded hydropower plant projects, offshore wind power.... With the investment plan as mentioned, the capital demand for projects in the coming time is huge.

For many years, due to deficits, EVN had to "tighten its belt", cut investments, and maintenance and operation of transmission grids. But that way cannot be continued: the system is prone to overload, while incidents increase.

To ensure EVN doesn’t continue to lose money and can make enough profit to reinvest, the formula must be clear: calculate correctly, calculate sufficiently, adjust timely, and allocate fairly.

Electricity prices must reflect actual costs, especially for transmission and distribution.

The state should design a two-part pricing mechanism, reduce cross-subsidies, and apply the principle of “prices can go up or down” based on market conditions.

Also, there must be a clear distinction between “commercial prices” and “subsidy prices.”

Tu Giang