Paying for gas we failed to get: Who will compensate post-paid consumers?

Bangladesh’s recent acute gas crisis once more laid bare not only the fragility of the country’s energy supply system, but also a disturbing question of consumer justice: Why should households continue paying the full monthly gas bill when they were unable to receive an adequate and uninterrupted supply of gas? For thousands of post-paid and non-metered residential consumers, the recent disruption and acute gas crisis were more than just an inconvenience. Moreover, it imposed a direct financial burden on the consumers �" whether individual, household, restaurant and transport sectors.

Most importantly, it is high-time Bangladesh to move rapidly towards universal prepaid metering. Prepaid meters would not solve the physical shortage of gas, but that would make the billing system considerably fairer and more transparent. Consumers would pay according to actual consumption rather than being charged a fixed amount irrespective of whether gas reaches their kitchens. The recent gas crisis, therefore, provides an opportunity to rethink and restructure the relationship between utility providers and consumers.

The unanticipated crisis also inflicted significant economic losses on businesses and productive sectors. Restaurants were forced to reduce menus, shorten operating hours or rely on costly LPG and other alternative fuels, pushing up cooking costs and, in many cases, food prices for customers. Gas-dependent factories, faced reduced production, disrupted operations and lower capacity utilisation as inadequate gas pressure made it difficult to run boilers, generators and other machinery efficiently while some factories were compelled to purchase more expensive alternative fuels, further raising their operating costs. The transport sector suffered as CNG stations faced shortages or irregular supply, forcing CNG-run vehicles to remain idle for long periods and the drivers losing their income for days.
The cumulative effect was therefore much broader than a household energy inconvenience: the gas crisis disrupted commerce, reduced productivity, increased business costs and ultimately transferred a substantial portion of the economic burden to consumers and the wider economy.
As for our household sufferings, our post-paid consumers pay a fixed monthly charge based mainly on the number of burners installed in their homes, instead of the actual quantity of gas consumed. During the recent crisis, however, many households experienced extremely low pressure or no usable gas for lengthy periods. Yet their monthly bills did not automatically fall. This unquestionably created an obvious inequity and injustice.
A family that could not cook at home still had to pay its regular gas bill. At the same time, it had to purchase LPG, use electric or induction cookers, or buy food from restaurants and outside vendors. For many, electricity consumption also shot up, as households resorted to alternative cooking methods. As a result, many families were forced to pay twice for the same basic necessity - once to the gas utility and again to obtain an alternative means of cooking.
We believe this unfair financial penalty cannot simply be dismissed as an unavoidable consequence of a national energy crisis. Our consumers well understand that gas shortages can occur because of technical failures, declining domestic production, LNG disruptions or other circumstances beyond the immediate control of a distribution company, but that does not necessarily mean consumers should bear the entire financial cost of a prolonged service failure.
It is exactly on this point where both the government and gas distribution companies need to consider a fair compensation mechanism.
The most straightforward solution would be a pro-rata rebate on monthly gas bills for areas that experienced prolonged and officially documented gas disruptions. If a particular neighbourhood received little or no usable gas for a substantial portion of the billing period, consumers in that area should receive a corresponding reduction in their bills.
It is not rocket science, and such a mechanism need not be complicated. Our gas distribution companies already know and can locate the areas and periods in which supply was severely disrupted. A transparent formula could therefore be easily established based on the duration and severity of the interruption. For instance , if a household received virtually no usable gas for half of a billing cycle, it should not be unreasonable to consider a substantial partial rebate. In cases of exceptionally prolonged disruption, a full waiver of the residential charge for the affected period could also be considered. Another practical solution could be: Crediting compensation directly to consumers' subsequent gas bills. This would be administratively easier than making cash payments while still acknowledging that consumers suffered a financial loss.
As far as a long-term solution is concerned - the government should also consider compensating households that had to rely heavily on alternative energy because of officially recognised supply failures. Such compensation would be more difficult to calculate, but even a modest fixed allowance could help offset the additional cost of electricity, LPG or purchased meals.
Most importantly, it is high-time Bangladesh to move rapidly towards universal prepaid metering. Prepaid meters would not solve the physical shortage of gas, but that would make the billing system considerably fairer and more transparent. Consumers would pay according to actual consumption rather than being charged a fixed amount irrespective of whether gas reaches their kitchens. The recent gas crisis, therefore, provides an opportunity to rethink and restructure the relationship between utility providers and consumers.
During the unexpected crisis, the government has repeatedly called upon citizens to be patient, and our consumers too have indeed shown remarkable patience. But that sincere patience should not be mistaken for an unlimited willingness to absorb financial losses. A gas connection should not become a permanent entitlement of the utility to collect a monthly charge irrespective of the quality or continuity of service. Payment and service must have a reasonable relationship.
If the government and gas authorities want to gain public confidence in the gas distribution system, we believe they must acknowledge the burden endured by our post-paid consumers while introducing a transparent compensation policy.
Consumers should not have to pay for gas they never received�"and then pay again to cook the food they could no longer prepare at home. That said- the recent crisis is not merely an energy issue. It is an issue of fairness, accountability and protecting basic consumer rights.