NEPRA flags power woes for industry
Listen to article
The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) has directed the Power Division to address the concerns of the industrial sector regarding inconsistent power supply. Industries are reportedly considering a return to captive power plants (CPPs) despite their higher operational costs due to frequent grid supply disruptions.
The directive was issued during a public hearing on a petition filed by the Central Power Purchasing Agency-Guarantee (CPPA-G) concerning the assumptions used to project the power purchase price (PPP) for financial year 2025-26. The hearing was chaired by Nepra Chairman Waseem Mukhtar and attended by Member (Technical) Sindh Rafique Ahmad Shaikh, Member (Technical) K-P Maqsood Anwar Khan and Member (Law) Amina Ahmed.
CPPA-G presented seven scenarios for the proposed PPP. In scenario one, it projected the price at Rs24.75 per unit, scenario two – Rs26.04 per unit, scenario three – Rs25.88 per unit, scenario four – Rs26.33 per unit, scenario five – Rs26.70 per unit, scenario six – Rs26.55 per unit and scenario seven – Rs26.22 per unit. Replying to a question, CPPA-G representative Naveed Qaiser said that scenarios four and five were likely to be implemented next year.
However, those projections were challenged by several interveners, who argued that the estimates did not adequately reflect the expected decline in hydropower generation. They also criticised the assumed exchange rate of Rs290/$, which was likely to influence future electricity pricing.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the PPP could drop by 78 paisa to Rs2.25 per unit, potentially saving consumers Rs140 billion to Rs400 billion in the next fiscal year. The average purchase price is expected to range between Rs24.75 and Rs26.22 per unit compared to the current average of Rs27 per unit.
Authorities projected a possible Rs2-per-unit reduction in tariffs alongside a 2.8% to 5% increase in demand, assuming an exchange rate of Rs300/$ in FY 2025-26.
The case officer explained that due to varying demand and fuel price assumptions, average per-unit prices in different scenarios could range between Rs6.8 and Rs8.1. Total fuel costs might reach Rs1.28 trillion, influenced by exchange rate fluctuations, inflation and interest rates.
Some scenarios also predict a 24% reduction in electricity prices compared to the current year. Transmission losses for National Transmission and Despatch Company (NTDC) are expected to remain stable at 2.80%.
Nepra questioned the Ministry of Energy's optimistic demand projections, especially given the recent downward trends. In response, ministry officials argued that demand was expected to rebound in line with the projected GDP growth. They noted that electricity demand rose 28% in April, attributing the uptick to recent tariff reductions that encouraged industries to reconnect to the grid.
The projections of CPPA-G were challenged by the interveners, who stated that PPP projections for FY26 were not correct, as a reduction in hydel generation was imminent. The budget for FY26 is projected to be prepared at an exchange rate of Rs290 per dollar.
During the hearing, it was revealed that the PPP was estimated to decrease by 78 paisa to Rs2.25 per unit, which could provide relief worth Rs140 billion to Rs400 billion to electricity consumers in the next fiscal year. According to officials, the estimated PPP for the upcoming fiscal year will range between Rs24.75 and Rs26.22 per unit, compared to Rs27 per unit for the current fiscal year. Authorities also estimated a Rs2-per-unit reduction in electricity prices and a 2.8% to 5% increase in demand. The US dollar is projected to be valued at Rs300 in the next fiscal year.
The case officer informed Nepra that the request pertained to PPP projections for the coming fiscal year. Different scenarios suggest a significant variation in electricity prices, with the average per-unit price likely to remain between Rs6.8 and Rs8.1.
Due to potential increases in fuel costs, the total fuel cost could rise to Rs1,284.11 billion. Factors such as the dollar rate, inflation and interest rates impact electricity prices, which is why prices are expected to be higher in scenarios with low demand and high fuel costs. The briefing revealed that compared to the current fiscal year, some scenarios could result in a 24% decrease in electricity prices, while transmission losses for NTDC are expected to remain at 2.80%.
Nepra questioned the Ministry of Energy's claims regarding increased electricity demand. The authority's chairman asked how an increase was expected when demand had been declining in recent years. The Ministry of Energy responded that demand was expected to rise based on GDP growth and recent reductions in electricity prices had already led to an increase in demand. In April, electricity demand increased by 28% and industries have started returning to the grid. If tariffs remain low, electricity demand will increase. The Ministry of Energy also briefed Nepra on fuel price projections for the next fiscal year. Officials stated that the cost of gas for electricity generation was estimated at Rs1,050 per mmBtu.
Thar coal is projected to cost $20 per ton from July to September and $18 to $19 per ton from October to June. Imported coal (API 4) is estimated to remain at $100 per ton throughout the year, imported coal (ICI 3) at $74 per ton and imported coal (ICI 5) at $35 per ton. Brent crude oil is expected to be priced at $74 per barrel until January 2026 and $72 per barrel from March to June 2026.
According to the Nepra briefing, furnace oil is estimated to cost $522 per ton from July to December and $508 per ton from January to June. The price of high-speed diesel is expected to remain at Rs264 per litre throughout the year.
The Ministry of Energy added that according to the IMF, the GDP was expected to grow by 3.6% in 2026 and electricity demand was projected to increase by 2.8% to 5%. Demand on the 132kv grid may reach between 128,000 million and 131,000 million units.
Officials stated that electricity demand dropped significantly in 2023, improved somewhat in 2024 and was expected to grow steadily in the coming years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Nepra's MYT decision: a step in the right direction
EDITORIAL: After a prolonged delay, the regulator — National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) — has finally approved the Multi-Year Tariff (MYT) for the only private entity operating in the power utility sector. There has been a considerable outcry in the media following the Power Minister's criticism of Nepra's decision to allow KE (Karachi Electric) to incorporate recovery losses. But before delving into the controversy, it must be emphasised that this is a step in the right direction, as it will unlock KE's valuation for its shareholders. It will help resolve disputes among existing shareholders and incentivize much-needed investment in the fully integrated energy-utility company. This, in turn, will bode well for the sustainability of the power supply to Karachi, the country's economic hub and a city of teeming millions. Moreover, the move sets the stage for the privatisation of other distribution companies (Discos) — a long-awaited reform in the power sector's transmission and distribution segments. Until now, reform efforts have largely focused on the generation side. Unfortunately, the debate primarily concerns KE receiving compensation for recovery losses. On paper, KE's recovery losses appear higher than those of a few other Discos. Ironically, in the so-called 'better-performing' Discos, recovery during 8MFY25 exceeds 100 percent for consumers using 0–200 units but drops to the 80s for higher-slab consumers. The pattern for KE is similar. However, its overall recovery rates are lower — mid-80s for the 0 — 200-unit slab and mid-70s for higher slabs. These figures point to overbilling by other Discos and lower collection efficiency by KE. Nepra has allowed KE to pass on these costs to different consumers. However, shifting the burden to others is unfair to honest consumers. Yet, other Discos have been doing the same — without any transparency. The PHL surcharge (Rs3.23/unit), paid by all electricity consumers nationwide, including KE's, represents a legacy cost linked to historical losses by state-owned Discos. These public entities are not held financially accountable for their losses; the costs are absorbed into the infamous circular debt. In contrast, KE's shareholders bear the losses and are justified in seeking cost coverage. The way forward should focus on reducing KE's losses and ending overbilling by others. Media scrutiny should push KE to improve its recovery rates. Nonetheless, KE's AT&C (Aggregate Technical and Commercial) losses, as allowed by Nepra, have declined from 43.2 percent in 2009 to 20.3 percent today, with a target of 15.3 percent by 2030. The power division's criticism is a grievance against KE's current management. Nepra's determination came after consultations with all stakeholders, including the power division. If there were objections, they should have been raised during that process. It is important to note that Karachi is a complex city, and the private operator has halved its losses over the past 15 years. Had other Discos achieved similar results, the savings would have been substantial. Nepra's allowance for losses is set to decline over the next seven years — and the same standard should be applied to other Discos as well. Achieving this, however, requires investment and competent management. Such outcomes are unlikely without corporatisation and privatisation. To move forward, Discos must be held accountable for their losses and rewarded for improved performance. They need their MYTs and access to private investment — both of which would benefit Pakistan's broader, evolving power sector. KE's MYT approval is a step in this direction. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
9 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Tariff comfort, consumer cost, Nepra's gamble
In a move that will raise eyebrows among those advocating for performance-based regulation, Nepra has sided with K-Electric in allowing a recovery shortfall allowance based on a 92 percent recovery ratio — a decision that flies in the face of the Ministry of Energy's more disciplined proposal. KE had argued that, unlike state-owned discos whose losses are quietly absorbed into the circular debt, its commercial shortfall should be treated as a legitimate pass-through cost. But instead of asking why a privatized utility with over 100 years of history and significant capital investment still needs regulatory shelter for basic operational efficiency, the regulator has chosen to codify KE's weakest performance year (FY24: 92.8 percent) into its future tariff framework. Worse still, the benchmark recovery percentage even by the end of the MYT in FY30 period does not reach the levels seen in FY22. The Ministry's stance — rooted in logic, precedent, and consumer interest — was brushed aside. The MoE had argued for using a 'high watermark' recovery ratio from FY22 or FY23 (96.6 percent and 96.7 percent, respectively) to prevent one off-year from becoming the baseline for tariff calculations. That approach would have halved the burden on consumers, reducing KE's claimed recovery loss allowance from Rs2.88/kWh to Rs1.41/kWh. Instead, with Nepra's green light, KE has now locked in a structural inefficiency at a time when the rest of the sector is — at least on paper — moving toward performance benchmarking and fiscal discipline. Nepra's ruling signals a worrying precedent: if a private utility can socialize its commercial inefficiencies while retaining operational autonomy, then the case for privatization or performance-linked regulation becomes weaker. What message does it send when a regulator backs comfort over competition? If the regulator's decision to validate KE's recovery allowance set a risky precedent, its approval of actualization of units sent-out could also be problematic. In theory, adjusting tariff revenue to reflect real demand variations — much like what is allowed for discos — sounds reasonable. But in practice, it opens up a perverse incentive: KE's revenue is now insulated from shortfalls in demand, even if those shortfalls are partially self-inflicted. Given the regulator's own acknowledgment that this framework could encourage increased load shedding in high-loss areas, the decision feels like an open invitation for KE to game the system — maximizing revenue protection while shifting risk onto the consumer. The regulator has held on to usual warnings: KE is 'directed to ensure uninterrupted supply' and its performance will be monitored on benchmarks like SAIFI, SAIDI, and load-shed adherence. But let's be honest — the track record doesn't inspire confidence. KE has flouted load-shedding rules in the past, often citing commercial losses, and faced penalties so negligible they barely qualify as deterrents. If the regulator is serious about disincentivizing this behaviour, it needs to do more than issue legalese-laden warnings. It must link revenue protections directly with performance metrics, impose penalties that bite. Otherwise, what Nepra has created is a regulatory shelter — one that could make blackouts not just a coping mechanism, but a profit-maximizing strategy. This also comes at a time when KE's future demand growth is under serious question. With overall electricity consumption falling by 7.2 percent in FY23 — and 7.9 percent in residential and 1.5 percent in industrial segments — and with net metering and competitive CTBCM dynamics gaining traction, KE's captive market is eroding. The Ministry of Energy had flagged this, rightly recommending a downward revision in demand projections and capital spending. But KE continues to push ahead with an ambitious investment plan, and now has the regulatory cushioning to shift the consequences of demand shortfalls onto consumers. In such an environment, the risk isn't just of rising tariffs — it's of deepening the disconnect between consumer experience and utility accountability. Nepra's accommodation — from recovery shortfall allowances to actualization of sent-out units — may seem like one-off technical approvals, but they carry deeper structural implications as Pakistan inches toward privatizing other discos under the IMF's watch. By allowing revenue protection mechanisms that decouple financial performance from operational efficiency, Nepra risks embedding regulatory moral hazard into the very model it aims to scale. If a legacy private utility is allowed to socialize commercial inefficiencies and manage demand risk without tight performance-linked conditions, what incentive remains for future investors to run leaner, consumer-centric utilities? Worse, it sets a precedent where privatization becomes a risk-free return model underwritten by public consumers, undermining the very fiscal discipline that the IMF reforms seek to instill.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
PMO asks PD for recovery-based loadshedding update
ISLAMABAD: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has sought an update from the Power Division on its proposed policy to legalize recovery-based loadshedding, amid continued penalties imposed by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) on Distribution Companies (Discos) and K-Electric for implementing such load management practices in violation of regulatory laws. This initiative is part of a broader reform agenda assigned to the Power Division by the Prime Minister, aimed at removing legal barriers to unscheduled power load shedding across the country. However, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) has expressed reservations about the plan. It argues that while load shedding may help avoid high electricity costs in low-recovery areas, the government remains liable for capacity payments on unutilized electricity—making the overall economic rationale questionable. HCSTSI condemns HESCO over increased load-shedding At a public hearing on Fuel Cost Adjustment (FCA) last year, Nepra Chairman Chaudhry Waseem Mukhtar confirmed that revenue-based load shedding is currently illegal, which is why the regulator is penalizing utilities for enforcing it. He suggested that the government must legalize the practice if it intends to continue its implementation. Following the Chairman's remarks, the Power Division began drafting a proposal titled 'Amendments in Legal Framework to Implement Economic Load Management in the Country.' The proposal aims to embed recovery-based and Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) loss-based load shedding into the legal and regulatory structure. According to the Power Division, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif chaired a series of meetings on April 15, 18, and 25, 2024, during which he directed the division to review and suggest necessary amendments to existing laws and policies. A committee comprising representatives from the Private Power and Infrastructure Board (PPIB), Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA), Law Division, Nepra, and independent legal experts was formed to carry the initiative forward. The Power Division circulated a draft summary to relevant ministries for feedback before submitting it to the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC), Cabinet Committee on Energy (CCoE), or the federal cabinet for approval. In its feedback, the Finance Ministry noted the summary lacked empirical data to substantiate the claimed benefits. It stressed that while load shedding in high-loss areas may be justifiable to an extent, the fiscal impact of paying for idle generation capacity remains a major concern. The Power Division, however, maintains that Discos are compelled to implement load shedding in high-loss areas due to economic constraints. With rising electricity costs from the central power pool, continuing to supply expensive power to areas with poor recoveries is financially unsustainable. Therefore, it argues, a structured and legally sanctioned load shedding mechanism is essential for the sector's financial viability. Nevertheless, sources suggest that Nepra remains opposed to the proposed amendments and has raised serious objections. The Finance Division reiterated its stance, emphasizing the need for the Power Division to present a detailed comparative analysis of the economic trade-offs involved. The Cabinet has asked the Power Division to clearly explain the advantages of such a policy, particularly in terms of cost avoidance and system sustainability. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
