KE’s Rs50bn write-off claims: Nepra unlikely to reverse its decision

ISLAMABAD: The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) is unlikely to reverse its decision regarding K-Electric’s (KE) Rs 50 billion write-off claims, as the Authority found no compelling arguments from the interveners — including the Power Division and Central Power Purchasing Agency- Guarantee (CPPA-G), which challenged Nepra’s earlier decision.

On Tuesday, the Nepra held a hearing on the review petitions submitted by the interveners and on the Power Division’s motion for review.

Participants in the hearing included representatives from the Power Division, the CEO of CPPA-G, MNA Syed Hafeezuddin, Arif Bilwani, Rehan Jawed, Tanveer Barry from the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI), and a representative of Jamaat-e-Islami, Imran Shahid. They presented arguments against Nepra’s approval of KE’s write-off claims.

K-Electric write-offs: NEPRA allows Rs50 billion as ‘full and final claim’

MQM’s Syed Hafeezuddin proposed that Nepra resolve disputes between KE and other public/ private stakeholders through mediation. The Power Division’s position appeared weak, as it failed to present any federal government approval for its motion for review.

Arif Bilwani opposed the extent of the write-off claims that the Nepra had approved. Other interveners were considered unrelated to the original proceedings and thus lacked standing.

In response to one of the interveners, Nepra Member (Technical) Rafique Ahmad Shaikh stated that once an Authority decision is challenged in court and a stay is granted, the Authority cannot proceed on the matter. Member (Law) Amina Ahmed noted that Nepra had provided ample time for the interveners to present their arguments regarding the write-off claims.

KE Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Aamir Ghaziani, in his written comments on Power Division’s Leave for Motion and other intervention requests said that pursuant to preliminary examination and subject to its right to submit detailed proper responses to individual petitions, it is asserted that the Motions for Review filed by parties other than KE are prima facie not maintainable and require a comprehensive and carefully prepared defence.

In many instances, the company has not been provided with authenticated copies of the Impugned Review Motions, and thus a basic requirement for due process has been completely ignored. These fundamental legal objections undermine and invalidate the review proceedings and bring under scrutiny significant errors and procedural improprieties which must either be removed or rectified before proceedings can commence as mandated by the Nepra Legal framework.

KE has submitted most of the parties that have instituted the Impugned Review Motions, including but not limited to the CCPA-G were neither parties to the original proceedings nor admitted as interveners, and therefore lack the locus standi to seek a review at this stage.

KE has cited reference to Regulation 3 (1) (d) of the Nations Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (inserted through SRO 1036 (1)/ 2014 of November 19, 2014), the operative section reproduced is as follows “a party to any order or decision of Nepra or a person who participated in the proceedings for tariff determination as an ‘intervener’.”

In view of the reproduced provision of the Nepra (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009, it is clarified that only those parties/ persons who fall within the definition of parties as elucidated may submit a motion for review pursuant to the Nepra (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009, read along with all other enabling provisions of the Nepra legal framework.

In the instant matter, the parties to the proceedings have taken umbrage with the subject decisions of the Nepra Authority despite not having been part of the original proceedings (despite issuance of public notices) that would entitle them to seek a review. In the absence of such entitlement, the Impugned Review Motions are liable to be dismissed as being non-maintainable.

KE further stated that the function of the CPPA-G is limited to agent of Discos and administer/ manage the legacy contracts and hence is not a related or affected party to institute or continue the instant proceedings.

The power utility company has further argued that the Impugned Review Motions also attempt to introduce substantive and fresh grounds that fall entirety outside the narrow and exceptional scope of review permitted under the law, thereby converting the review process into a de facto appeal—which is impermissible and in any case that would fall within the scope and ambit of Section 12G(1) of the Nepra Act, 1997 wherein the remedy of appeal is available to the applicant/ parties before the Nepra Appellate Tribunal. Thus, under the garb of review, grounds for appeal have been present.

KE has also cited reference to Regulation 3 (2) of the Nepra (Review Procedure) Regulations, 2009, reproduced hereunder for ease of clarity: “Any party aggrieved from any order of the Authority and who, from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or from any other sufficient reasons, may file a motion seeking review of such order.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025