BAFL 38.47 Increased By ▲ 0.02 (0.05%)
BIPL 17.49 Increased By ▲ 0.24 (1.39%)
BOP 3.97 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-2.46%)
CNERGY 3.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.04 (-1.3%)
DFML 16.26 Decreased By ▼ -0.29 (-1.75%)
DGKC 43.42 Decreased By ▼ -0.38 (-0.87%)
FABL 22.30 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FCCL 11.31 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
FFL 6.44 Increased By ▲ 0.07 (1.1%)
GGL 9.27 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-2.32%)
HBL 90.44 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.07%)
HUBC 88.33 Increased By ▲ 0.63 (0.72%)
HUMNL 5.50 Increased By ▲ 0.01 (0.18%)
KEL 1.96 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-2.49%)
LOTCHEM 28.49 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.04%)
MLCF 29.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-0.86%)
OGDC 96.46 Decreased By ▼ -1.74 (-1.77%)
PAEL 9.94 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.5%)
PIBTL 3.86 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.77%)
PIOC 85.10 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.18%)
PPL 74.07 Decreased By ▼ -0.53 (-0.71%)
PRL 15.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.10 (-0.65%)
SILK 0.95 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-2.06%)
SNGP 46.98 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.38%)
SSGC 9.19 Decreased By ▼ -0.17 (-1.82%)
TELE 6.70 Decreased By ▼ -0.26 (-3.74%)
TPLP 12.24 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.73%)
TRG 88.02 Decreased By ▼ -2.13 (-2.36%)
UNITY 25.17 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-0.87%)
WTL 1.14 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
BR100 4,625 Decreased By -31.5 (-0.68%)
BR30 16,568 Decreased By -95.5 (-0.57%)
KSE100 46,233 Decreased By -132.5 (-0.29%)
KSE30 15,989 Decreased By -183.2 (-1.13%)

In Gordium, the capital of Phrygia (ancient Greece), legend had it that whoever could untie an oxcart tied by a complex knot would rule all Asia. Famously, in 333 BCE, Alexander the Great untied the knot, not by untangling it, but by cutting through it.

This article advocates cutting the Gordian Knot of our purchasing power agreements (PPAs) with Independent Power Producers (IPPs), by nationalising the IPPs. This would lower electricity tariffs, which now threaten civil order, and solve the problem of circular debt, once and for all, albeit at an upfront cost.

The mechanics are straightforward. A ‘Power Sector Nationalisation Ordinance, 2023’ can be drafted and promulgated in less than eight weeks of decision. The Ordinance would specify its coverage and provide for owners to be compensated by suitably structured federal government bonds (or sukuk), but only on the basis of a comprehensive, reliable audit, preferably forensic, of their accounts.

No other compensation should be allowed. It would provide for orderly transfer of their boards and management, under a newly defined mandate, and include an Orderly Nationalisation Framework, drawing on the 1998 Orderly Framework for IPP Negotiations.

Other provisions to facilitate implementation and remove difficulties should be provided. The aim should be to unlink all indexing to dollars, shift all commercial risks from government to investors, strictly restrict sovereign guarantees to political risks only, and align the target return on equity to global norms.

Based on careful study of all contracts, the Ordinance should cover all IPPs whose PPAs contravene these aims: around 40 IPPs (of the 247 currently licensed), of which only 10 comprise 60-70pc of the sector.

No doubt, the IPPs cartel would resist this. But let us first look at what would be accomplished if such an Ordinance could be passed. Reportedly, (ET, 29 August), the government is committed to pay Rs 1,300 billion (roughly $4.3 billion) in capacity payments to idle IPP plants in the current fiscal year.

If promulgated by say end December, over half this amount (roughly 9pc of the budgeted federal deficit this year) would be saved and the average consumer’s monthly electricity bill would be reduced by perhaps 25-35pc.

More significantly, the Ordinance would lay to rest the problem of so-called Circular Debt that has bedeviled public finances and the national economy since 2006. This unfortunate term, sanctified by the Economic Committee of the Cabinet in 2014, misleadingly suggests that these debts arise from a shortage of liquidity to settle offsetting obligations.

In fact, they are structural debts that arise from the incentive (“security”) package offered by governments to IPPs in the early 1990s. These agreements tie successive generations of the people of Pakistan, for 25-30 years, to providing inputs (fuel oil, natural gas, and coal) to IPPs effectively at rupee-indexed prices, while paying for their installed capacity and electricity generated in dollar-indexed prices.

This deceptive, fraudulent asymmetry in the structure of PPAs, along with numerous other unjust provisions, ensures that governments will go on accumulating rising debts to the IPPs, as prices, interest rates, and foreign currency exchange rates rise.

They must then recover these from citizens through increases in tariffs and taxes that now threaten to outstrip their incomes, as well as through improvements in technical and commercial efficiency. These contracts are unconscionably unfair and inequitable.

This structural debt, created by failing to fulfill obligations under these PPAs, is reportedly (PT Profit, 16 August), around Rs 2,310 billion (roughly $7.7 billion) today. This should be offset against a final settlement with the IPPs.

What would be the upfront cost of this nationalisation? There are well-established ways of valuing an acquisition, which yield a range of values for each unit, within which a price can be negotiated. While easy for the government to estimate more precisely, as a rough-and-ready estimate by an outsider, it seems reasonable to budget for up to Rs 5,400 billion (roughly $18 billion) in compensation, payable over 20-30 years. Profits realised so far, especially by the older IPPs, have been astronomically high.

Under accepted legal standards of “fair, just, and equitable” compensation, these IPPs may well have to pay rather than receive compensation. The final figure, therefore, may be much lower. (A delay in settlement, due to delay in provision of accounts and their audit, would provide unintended liquidity to a government in financial difficulties.)

The Nationalisation Framework, under the Ordinance, should provide for the issue of Notices of Intent to Nationalise, declaring a moratorium on interest payments and preventing companies and lenders from untoward legal steps to protect their rights under the agreements, as was done in 1998. Most IPPs are now owned by citizens (even if dual citizens), so all disputes should be subject to domestic courts.

As precedent, local courts successfully restrained Hub Power Company from recourse to international arbitration in 1998. In the unlikely event that a legal jeopardy exists in some contracts, we have recourse under international and foreign municipal laws to several pre-emptive measures, best left unspecified for now.

This concludes the case for nationalisation, but concurrent efforts would also be needed to reimagine the future design and functioning of the electricity sector, after nationalisation. This would call, above all, for a change in the mindset of policymakers, who have been indoctrinated over the last thirty years in the theoretical, unquestionable virtues of deregulation and privatisation. But in reality, the textbook paradigm of reforms has failed in Pakistan mainly because the regulatory and antitrust systems needed to break up monopolistic cartels and promote competition, essential for its success, do not exist.

Consequently, none of the expected gains of increased efficiency, improved service quality, and reduced costs and consumer tariffs, have materialised. It is high time, therefore, that we move from ideology-based to results-oriented reforms. The World Bank admits as much (Rethinking Power Sector Reform, 2020):

“During the 1990s, a new paradigm for power sector organization emerged from the wider ‘Washington Consensus,’ a term coined in 1989. Multilateral institutions spearheaded the new paradigm across the world, and it rapidly took hold... Marked by 10 neoliberal policy recommendations, the era featured two policies that were particularly relevant to the power sector—namely, the privatization of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the abolition of regulations restricting competition… the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, played prominent roles in diffusing market ideas throughout the developing world… [But the] prescriptions of the 1990s reform model were primarily derived from economic theory and principles. By the early 2000s, it had become clear that the model was not universally applicable in practice.”

The design of a practical, reality-based, results-oriented middle path between the old WAPDA/KESC system and the current state of disorder is a complex technical task which should be entrusted to a committee of experts.

They should draft a roadmap of common-sense reforms, which should constantly be reviewed and revised in the light of experience. The proposed Ordinance should be the first step toward the new system. But to succeed, not just in the power sector but in overall economic reforms, governments must abandon the blind pursuit of theoretical paradigms, unmindful of consequences, and make policy by rational trial-and-error. “Cross the river by feeling the stones,” as the Chinese say.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Dr Arshad Zaman

The writer has served as Senior Economist with the World Bank in the 1970s and as the Chief Economist of the Government of Pakistan in the 1980s. This article draws on a larger paper, Social Origins of Debt Crises, available at:


Comments are closed.

Jehanzaib Sep 13, 2023 10:00am
Who are the beneficiaries of these agreements?
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Azeem Hakro Sep 13, 2023 10:12am
i think nationalizing the IPPs could also cause more bureaucracy and inefficiency, and reduce investment in the power sector.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Hasan Sep 13, 2023 11:00am
How such a garbage article is even allowed to be published on BR. Pakistan is already paying price of earlier nationalization. The only thing that needs to be ensure is timely payment of IPP dues which can decrease the risks perceived by new investors due to which they demand higher returns. Plus doing new agreements based on competitive bidding.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
KU Sep 13, 2023 11:49am
You can't. The agreement signed by our popular leaders and their legacies are stronger than the strongest material on planet Earth, irrespective of the fact that these agreements are skinning the population alive, they shall prevail. Alternatively, we should start thinking about nationalizing the people and all of their belongings, who knows it might have some effect on our economy.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Arif Sep 13, 2023 12:37pm
Nationalisation is not a solution as it will be a nightmare if IPP’s are run by government. Just see other public sector corporations . Instead all contracts should be changed to pay whatever power is generated.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Here we are advocating nationalisation, where as in others cases , like PIA , we are pushing for privatization.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Johnny Walker Sep 13, 2023 12:58pm
IPP's are owned by politico's and vested interest entities. It will be a miracle if these are nationalised irrespective of the legal consequences.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
imdad kolori Sep 13, 2023 02:12pm
nationalize the Ipps he said , they become the next SEPCO, HESCO , LESCO. Instead of giving impractical solution , how about cutting free electricity to all free riders. Easily implementable , but why would you implement it, the writer is the benefeciary of the same clan
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Muhammad Anwar Khan Sep 13, 2023 04:51pm
This is excellent proposal to get out of this gaugmire.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
ZM Sep 13, 2023 07:18pm
Well! IPPs are mostly running on reduced load and planners are bringing more power plants. Result will worsen the situation. Further who is going to pay millions to IPPs who were invited to invest in power sector through various monetary agencies. We have to focus on increase in power demand by industrialisation which will result in economical stability increased purchase power and reduce $ Rs parity and for time being stop
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Dr Shahida Wizarat Sep 13, 2023 08:10pm
Very interesting article. Just one point of clarification. Arn't the IPPs nearing completion of their time period? So why nationalise? Why not just let the contract expire and not renew it?
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Amir Sep 13, 2023 10:11pm
What needs to be done is a re-negotiation of all agreements by competent, un-purchasable, honest and well informed officers of the government of which there has been a severe shortage for the past several decades when 'you know who' were in the driving seats in this unfortunate country!
thumb_up Recommended (0)
KU Sep 13, 2023 11:12pm
@Dr Shahida Wizarat , that should have been the case, but our leaders are always one step ahead of public sentiments, they renewed the agreements with 41 IPPs in 2021, while some have contracts till 2030. And no one knows the details of the new agreements.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
faisal Sep 14, 2023 03:46am
China don't forgive q single cent.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
imran Sep 14, 2023 01:48pm
An excellent proposal. These IPPs were created with malafide intent. Initially all the owners of IPPs were believed to be foreigners but within a year or so, the people realised that most of them were Pakistanis. Are the agreement clauses fair enough for the public of Pakistan. Now why should we as general population care for legalities. It probably is the best time to shackle the IPPs as there is no law or constitution. The way some political parties and workers are being treated by the law, why that similar methodology cant be applied on owners of IPPs. After all, it is in the best interest of the nation/ public. No matter how badly the govt runs them, they will still ease out the public from the current chaos. BUT ONLY IF SOMEONE CARES FOR THE PUBLIC
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Waqas Tariq Sep 14, 2023 10:46pm
Nationalizing has works so good for Pakistan, it's a great idea! The steel mill has been running and profitable, PIA is making piles of money, and the DICOS are so efficient that the world wants to copy us. Let's bring the IPPs in as well, let's nationalize! Most of the Capacity payments are loan repayments by the IPPs to banks, the loans they took to build and have sovereign guarantee on.
thumb_up Recommended (0)
Javaid Sep 17, 2023 05:02pm
Can someone please tell me on what basis were the tariffs created and agreed to by successive governments since 1994? Why were only IPPs based on imported fuel given licences? ( until recently to Thar Power projects) Why was no effort made to use Lakhra Coal or other indigenous sources of coal to fuel the plants? Why was there no effort made to set up small hydel projects on the irrigation canals like they had been done in Chichokimalian and Nandipur? I remember a great Chief Engineer Hydel in WAPDA, Mr.Ayub Sadozai who had told me that he planned to make certain parts of the turbines in Pakistan. This was in 1974-1975!! He was truly interested in doing things correctly but unfortunately he was removed three or four months later or some time soon! Sounds familiar does'nt it? Most of the licences for plants given during the period 2014 to 2018 wer for plants based on Natural Gas and RLNG and guess which country is one of the largest exporter of RLNG? Remember the infamous Qatari Khat?!!
thumb_up Recommended (0)

Nationalise the IPPs

ECP unfreezes voter lists for registration, corrections till Oct 25

Pakistan’s central bank reserves decrease $59mn, now stand at $7.64bn

Rupee sees 17th successive session of gain, settles at 287.74 against US dollar

Open-market: rupee gains further ground against US dollar

Supreme Court adjourns hearing on pleas against Faizabad sit-in verdict till Nov 1

FM renews Pakistan's call for independent Palestinian state

Faysal Bank to set up ‘wholly-owned’ Exchange Company

OGDC’s earnings clock in at whopping Rs224.6bn in FY23, up 68% YoY

Canada PM says he is sure Blinken will raise murder case with India

Russian oil sold to India at 30% above Western price cap