KARACHI, Aug 21: People representing a cross-section of society forcefully opposed a tariff hike sought by the KESC at a public hearing organized by the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority on Monday.

They demanded that the KESC be allowed to generate power on its own without having to purchase electricity from independent power producers at exorbitant rates.

They contended that high transmission and distribution losses meant that the costlier power that the KESC bought from independent power producers went down the drain.

While the consumers gave vent to their feelings, the vice- chairman of Nepra, Fazlullah Qureishi, who presided over the hearing, termed the outpourings of a man a “drama”. It was only when the Nepra vice-chairman was reproved by the audience that he offered a handsome apology.

A consumer, contended that while the KESC audit report might state that the transmission and distribution losses had come down, the fact remained that the number of power units billed by the KESC had decreased.

“This bears testimony to the fact that the power utility’s overall efficiency has worsened since the army took over the KESC in 1999. Whatever tariff that the KESC has earned over the past three years is entirely due to frequent tariff increase.”

Speaking about energy sales and receivables, he said: “In 2001, the KESC sold power units worth Rs14.3 billion to industrial consumers and power units worth Rs12.43 billion to residential and commercial consumers. While the KESC recovered Rs13 billion from its residential and commercial consumers, it recovered merely Rs4.5 billion from its industrial consumers.”

He also argued that the amount of electricity that KESC employees consumed without any charges was not commensurate with their performance.

“In 1998, when the KESC had 12,500 employees, they consumed 84,000 megawatts without paying anything. In 2001, when the KESC had 11,500 employees, they consumed 100,000 megawatts without any charges.”

Another consumer said that apart from transmission and distribution losses, KESC also caused a great deal of inconvenience to its consumers by breakdowns and fluctuations in voltage.

He said: “The KESC is arresting defaulters these days. The point is that why the KESC lets the arrears accumulate in the first place. It is the responsibility of the KESC to cut off power supply of defaulters at the earliest.”

A representative of a multinational company said that the per unit cost of self-generation of electricity came to Rs2.5. “But the KESC purchases electricity from independent power producers at more than Rs3 per unit. This goes onto prove that self- generation is more economical than purchase of power from independent power producers.”

A member of a non-governmental organization said that the general impression was that the Nepra committee seemed to have taken a decision regarding the KESC petition seeking a 16 per cent rise in power tariff. “I hope that this is not the case because if this happens, we will definitely go to court.”

An industrialist said that at the Hub Chowki the performance of the KESC was not satisfactory at all. He added that the Water and Power Development Authority be entrusted with the task of providing electricity to Hub Chowki.

A representative of another NGO said it was beyond her comprehension why she should pay more to convert a public utility to convert into a private enterprise.

Earlier, a Nepra official spoke about a KESC petition filed with the power regulator on Feb 12 for an overall tariff increase of 47.5 per cent in three phases: 15 per cent from Feb 1; 15 per cent from October 1 and 11.5 per cent from April 1, 2003.

He said: “A revised petition was filed on May 22 as a replacement of the earlier petition. The Authority admitted the petition in its revised form. The current revised petition contains two major proposals: an immediate tariff increase of 16 per cent and approval of a multi-year formula based tariff for the next 10 years.”

The Nepra official said: “The high level of transmission and distribution losses as 40 per cent was the main issue. The Authority was requested to direct the petitioner categorically to reduce its losses progressively from the 30 per cent benchmark to each year by five per cent annually. Consequently, the projections for 2002-03 should seek to restrict the T&D losses to 25 per cent.”