ISLAMABAD: Power Division and K-Electric are said to have developed differences over the Tariff Differential Subsidy (TDS), with KE asserting that its submission should be treated as “deemed signed” and that any disputes should be resolved under Clause 4 of the Tariff Differential Subsidy Agreement (TDSA), well-informed sources told Business Recorder.
In a letter to the Power Division, KE’s Chief Financial Officer, Aamir Ghaziani, referred to the TDS Balance Report for October 2025, which KE submitted on November 14, 2025, for acknowledgment by the Ministry of Energy. In response, the Power Division issued a revised balance report on November 24, 2025.
According to KE, the revised TDS balance report is based on the impugned review determinations issued by NEPRA on October 20, 2025. These determinations have been challenged by KE before the Sindh High Court through CP Nos. D-5384, 5385, 5386 and 5387 of 2025.
KE-CPPAG TDS row stays unresolved
The KE argues that the Power Division’s revision contradicts Clause 2.1 of the TDSA, which explicitly states that in case of a restraining order from a court of law, the preceding tariff must be used for filing provisional TDS claims. The KE also cites the ad-interim order dated November 4, 2025, in the aforementioned petitions.
For reference, Clause 2.1 of the TDSA states:
“...Provided further that if a tariff determination or Quarterly Tariff Adjustment has been challenged by KE in the court of law and restraining orders have been issued against such tariff determination and Quarterly Tariff Adjustment, KE shall file provisional claims on the basis of tariff determination or Quarterly Tariff Adjustment preceding the one challenged by KE...”
The KE noted that in its earlier correspondence dated November 11, 2025, it had informed the ministry that the Nepra review determinations of October 20, 2025 — cited by the ministry in its revised report — were under challenge before the Sindh High Court, which has restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action with respect to the five impugned determinations. Therefore, KE contends, revising the TDS balance report based on determinations under litigation is a violation of the TDSA, as well as contemptuous of the court’s orders.
KE further highlighted that the TDSA does not provide for any markup on negative claims, contrary to what the revised balance report suggests. It added that, based on Nepra’s determination dated May 27, 2025, the claims in question are receivable by KE, and that the company also retains the right to claim markup for delays in processing tariff determinations within the timeframe stipulated under the NEPRA Act, in accordance with Clause 2.9 of the TDSA.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.