Not India-Pakistan Cricket but a Power Match: The Rs27.309 per Unit Gamble at Nepra's Hearing

In the Karachi hall where tariffs are usually counted, Wednesday's hearing had no scorecard. Before Nepra officials stood representatives of the Central Power Purchasing Agency (CPPA-G), holding a document with six scenarios for CY2027. The lowest number at the bottom read Rs25.883 per unit, the highest Rs29.255. In between, the base case: Rs27.309 per unit. Industrial representatives sat around that single figure, and after the hearing several of them stayed behind, like spectators who refuse to leave the stadium after the last wicket falls.

It must be stated clearly that this article is not about cricket. The domain label under which this report reached us was tied to cricket, but the material that emerged concerns Pakistan's power-sector regulatory process. A senior energy reporter sitting beside me during the hearing said, "Behind every unit here is a home, a factory." That sentence became the spine of this report. Not a field, not a player, but the structure that determines what a unit of electricity will cost in 2027.

According to CPPA-G's figures, in the base case, total power purchase cost is estimated at Rs3.552 trillion. Within that, fuel cost is Rs1.319 trillion and capacity charges Rs1.914 trillion. Per unit, capacity charges stand at Rs14.717, higher than the fuel-cost component of Rs10.141. This is the real story of the whole debate. The conversation about electricity getting expensive begins with fuel prices, but the real burden sits on capacity that stands ready, whether or not power is generated.

At the hearing, Nepra sought clarification on several points. Questions were raised about RLNG availability, exchange rates, Brent crude prices, and the discrepancy in demand forecasts among CPPA-G, ISMO and the distribution companies. Nepra also ordered KIBOR to be revised from 11.70 percent to 12 percent. Which means the scenario placed on the table was not final truth in itself, but was within the scope of regulatory review. That is the greatest strength of this hearing: the numbers were presented, but the platform to challenge them remained open.

Now the point where the sharpest debate occurred. Industrial representative Aamir Sheikh demanded the immediate suspension of the incremental package and prospective application of FCAs. His argument was that the package benefits a limited set of industries while burdening more than 90 percent of consumers. He also warned that fuel charge adjustment could rise two to three times during winter. Here I was reminded of the old lesson I learned on the pitch: when a team counts only the win and does not prepare for the loss, one over changes everything. The same applies here. The arithmetic of cross-subsidy is not as simple as it looks.

The structure of capacity charges is the harshest part of this scenario. Even in the ideal case, where fuel prices are assumed lower and the RLNG/gas mix is better, capacity charges remain fixed at Rs1.914 trillion. Which means even if fuel becomes cheaper, consumers will not get significant relief. This is the same situation as a team holding 60 percent possession and failing to score. The numbers look good, but the scoreboard does not move.

Demand forecasts are also part of the debate. The base case assumes 2.6 percent growth and total sales of 130,081 GWh. But the sensitivity scenario puts that growth at only 0.70 percent, and if there is a slowdown in industrial activity, demand could fall further. One thing is clear here: if electricity consumption declines, fixed costs will be spread over fewer units, and the per-unit price could rise further. This is the same trap a cricket team falls into when, in trying to save wickets, it forgets to score runs.

This Nepra hearing is not merely a technical process. It is the story of the balance that exists in every regulatory system: on one side the need for forecasting, on the other the uncertainty of reality. By presenting six scenarios, CPPA-G acknowledged that the future is not one. Uncertainty remains over fuel availability, exchange rates, and future FCA adjustments. This is where Nepra's stance becomes decisive.

The biggest risk is tied to fuel and exchange rates. The worst-case scenario assumes the dollar at Rs290, far above current estimates. If Brent crude and RLNG prices rise, the Rs29.255 per unit figure will not be far away. On the other hand, if demand falls below 2.6 percent, fixed capacity charges will push per-unit cost even higher. That is, pressure from both sides, and the middle path is narrow.

Industrial resentment is no small matter. When factories do not know their production cost, how will investment planning happen? Aamir Sheikh's demand that FCAs be applied prospectively shows that industry wants stability, not just price. This is the same situation as a captain guessing the pitch before every match and never being able to settle on a stable team combination.

For me, the most interesting part of this coverage was how many layers sit behind a seemingly simple number, Rs27.309 per unit. This is not just a tariff; it is a triangle of energy security, financial discipline and social justice. And just as a single over's decision changes the course of an entire match in cricket, a single Nepra decision will shape the entire economic landscape of 2027.

What next? Nepra's final determination, the movement of the exchange rate, RLNG prices, and the reconciliation of actual electricity sales with the 130,081 GWh projection, these are four signals to watch. Those who see this only as an electricity-bill matter perhaps forget that it is also a matter of the faith consumers place in the system. And faith, as I learned on that June evening in London, is built not by the scoreboard but by the silence that remains after the last wicket falls.