EDITORIAL: Nepra’s renewed assertion that revenue-based load-shedding is illegal raises a more immediate question: why has the regulator arrived at this conclusion only now, after the practice has imposed up to 18 hours of outages on parts of the country? The issue is not the correctness of the position; linking electricity supply to recovery rates does raise serious legal and constitutional concerns. The issue is timing, consistency and focus.
The power sector is not suffering from a shortage of interventions. It is suffering from a shortage of coherent regulation. At a time when industry, exports, and investment are already constrained by unreliable energy supply, the regulator appears increasingly preoccupied with institutional disputes and retrospective clarifications rather than forward-looking oversight.
The contradiction is stark. On one hand, Nepra has taken a firm stance that revenue-based load management violates fundamental rights. On the other, the system continues to depend on exactly such mechanisms to contain losses in high-theft, low-recovery areas. The Power Division has warned that removing this practice could add more than Rs500 billion to the circular debt. That is not a marginal trade-off. It highlights the absence of a workable alternative.
A regulator’s role is to bridge precisely this kind of gap. Declaring a practice illegal without simultaneously providing an enforceable transition framework leaves the system in limbo. Discos remain financially exposed, circular debt risks expand and consumers face uncertainty over supply. The legal position may be clarified, but the operational reality remains unresolved.
This lack of alignment extends beyond load management. The ongoing disagreement between Nepra and the Independent System and Market Operator over the Integrated System Plan is another example. Differences over project inclusion, demand projections and regulatory compliance have turned what should be a technical planning exercise into an institutional standoff. Each side is operating within its mandate, yet the absence of convergence delays decisions that are central to the sector’s future.
Planning uncertainty carries real costs. Power generation, transmission expansion and investment decisions depend on clear and consistent projections. When demand estimates differ across institutions, or when previously approved projects are reconsidered without a shared framework, the system loses predictability. Investors and operators respond to that uncertainty by delaying commitments, raising costs or withdrawing altogether.
The broader consequence is that the regulator’s energy is being diverted into contesting processes rather than strengthening outcomes. Pakistan’s power sector faces structural challenges that are well understood: high transmission and distribution losses, weak recovery mechanisms, reliance on expensive fuel imports and a growing mismatch between installed capacity and actual delivery. These issues require sustained regulatory attention, technical expertise and coordinated policy direction.
Instead, the current pattern suggests fragmentation. Disputes over project status, revisions in planning criteria and delayed clarity on enforcement priorities create an impression of a system struggling to define its own direction. This is particularly concerning, given the centrality of energy to the wider economy. Industrial output, export competitiveness and investment flows are all directly linked to the reliability and cost of electricity.
The delayed recognition of revenue-based load-shedding’s legal status is emblematic of this drift. The practice has remained embedded in the current system, driven by financial constraints and operational limitations. Addressing it requires more than a legal pronouncement. It requires reform of Discos, improved recovery mechanisms, targeted subsidies for vulnerable consumers and a credible plan to reduce losses without cutting supply indiscriminately.
The same applies to system planning. Differences between institutions are inevitable, but they must be resolved within a framework that prioritises efficiency and cost optimisation. Allowing these differences to persist without resolution slows down an already strained sector.
Regulation, at its core, is about clarity, consistency, and accountability. When these elements weaken, the entire system feels the strain. Pakistan’s power sector does not lack policy documents or institutional structures; it lacks alignment.
Nepra’s role is central to restoring that alignment. It must focus less on reactive positions and more on building a coherent regulatory environment that addresses the sector’s underlying weaknesses. Without that shift, the cycle of disputes and delayed decisions will continue, and the cost will be borne by consumers, industry and the broader economy alike.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments