By
Qamar Bashir
Former Press Secretary to the President
Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC
The government has recently launched a discreet campaign against Independent Power Producers (IPPs), highlighting issues related to high electricity tariffs. Previously, the outcry against rising power costs came primarily from consumers, chambers of commerce, and small and medium enterprises, whose demands were largely ignored. However, the government now seems to realize that addressing the dual issues of electricity and gas circular debt is critical for its survival. To build pressure, the various scandals and secret information including the payment of large subsidies to IPPs and capacity payments to idle power producers have been leaked to the media.
This has kickstarted a heated debate in the mainstream media. Critics, analysts and energy experts are arguing that the agreements with IPPs were detrimental to national interests due to high production costs leading to elevated tariffs for consumers. The guaranteed payments have significantly increased the national debt and dependency on private entities for essential services, reducing governmental control over energy infrastructure. Furthermore, these contracts are prone to inefficiencies and corruption, escalating costs and reducing transparency, ultimately straining public finances and economic stability.
Ironically, most of these problematic IPP agreements were signed during the PPP and PML(N) periods. The initial policy to attract private investment in the power sector was introduced in 1994, followed by a second wave of IPPs between 1995 and 1997. A severe energy crisis from 2005 to 2010 increased reliance on IPPs, and in 2012, the Private Power and Infrastructure Board (PPIB) was made a statutory body to streamline development. The CPEC projects from 2013 to 2018 further expanded IPP capacity, especially in coal and renewables. During the PTI government in 2020, the government renegotiated terms with 47 IPPs to address high tariffs, but the total liability to IPPs in the power sector remains approximately Rs2.31 trillion.
Former Minister Gohar Ejaz revealed that the government pays Rs2 trillion annually to IPPs under “Take or Pay” clauses, even when no electricity is produced. IPPs have utilized less than 50% of their 23,400 MW generation capacity over the past two years, incurring additional costs of nearly Rs1 trillion due to idle and partially operational plants.
The media, civil society and political forces are pressuring the government to renegotiate power tariff payable to IPPS. The demand, though logical and sensible, is difficult to implement due to long-term Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with fixed terms, “Take or Pay” clauses, and capacity payments obligating the government to pay for unused power. These contracts include sovereign guarantees, making them legally binding and difficult to alter without facing international arbitration, which can result in hefty fines. Additionally, Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) protect foreign investments, adding another layer of complexity. Attempts to renegotiate can erode investor confidence and impact the country’s credit rating and future foreign investment prospects.
But the country cannot sustain this heavy burden anymore and it needs to get out of this paradox sooner the better, but how?.
In typical contractual agreements for power projects, it is common for the initial costs to be high due to the capital investment required. Over time, these costs are expected to decrease as the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) recover their fixed costs and earn profits. Additionally, some agreements may include provisions for the eventual transfer of the entity to the government once the IPP has recovered its fixed costs and achieved a reasonable return on investment.
However, many of the agreements signed with IPPs in Pakistan appear to have overlooked these aspects. Instead, they included “Take or Pay” clauses and guaranteed payments that ensure ongoing high costs even after the initial investment has been recouped. This has led to a situation where the expected reduction in costs over time has not materialized, continuing to strain public finances and contributing to circular debt.
The government of Pakistan however should not give knee jerk reactions by unilaterally terminating the agreements, but should think creatively to create a win-win situation while renegotiating with Independent Power Producers (IPPs). It should search, find and adopt international best practices that can provide valuable insights. However, there is no second opinion that renegotiating terms and tariffs is essential,
The renewed negotiations should bring the IPPs willing on the table and convince them with logic and wisdom. The terms of reference should include; adjusting payment terms to reflect actual power consumption rather than fixed capacity payments and gradually lowering tariffs as IPPs recover their fixed costs and earn reasonable profits.
Amending “Take or Pay” clauses to “Take and Pay” agreements, where payments are made based on actual electricity supplied, and incorporating performance-based incentives can also improve efficiency and reliability.
The government should offer its continued support and guarantee linked to operational efficiencies and reduced tariffs to maintain investor confidence while phasing out subsidies as IPP financial health improves.
Encouraging long-term partnerships, such as equity participation in future projects and including provisions for transferring ownership to the government after fixed costs are recovered, aligns IPP interests with national development goals and ensures sustainability.
Promoting renewable energy through competitive bidding and diversification into renewable projects can reduce operational costs and environmental impacts.
This strategy not only lowers electricity tariffs but also enhances energy security and sustainability. Examples from other countries, like the Philippines, which restructured its power sector through the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA) in 2001, show that renegotiating contracts and introducing competitive bidding can stabilize prices and improve financial health.
India’s Electricity Act 2003 promoted competition and efficiency by unbundling state electricity boards and allowing open access and competitive bidding, leading to increased private investment.
Similarly, South Africa’s Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) attracted significant investment in renewables through competitive bidding, reducing costs and enhancing energy security.
Ghana’s approach of renegotiating IPP contracts, reducing capacity charges, and improving state utility efficiency further illustrates how strategic reforms can address similar challenges.
Implementing these strategies, based on international best practices, can help Pakistan negotiate more favorable terms with IPPs, ensuring both parties benefit while addressing the country’s energy and financial challenges. This approach can reduce electricity costs, lower circular debt, and promote a sustainable and efficient power sector, ultimately benefiting both IPPs and the country.
Comments are closed.