he National Electric Power Regulatory Authority has released its half yearly report with notes denying responsibility in case of any inaccuracies for which, it implies, the blame must lie with the distribution and generation companies that provide most of it. While there is a lot of data and one can begin to see patterns in it, the disclaimer tends to undermine the credibility of the report and the confidence in any conclusions one might draw from the data.

Some of the errors are absolute shockers. For example, the reported number of defective meters in some instances is below zero. How is that even possible? Yet, the report documents cases where some DISCOs report negative numbers for defective meters at the end of the month and a positive number at the beginning of the subsequent month. The anomaly is for SEPCO for five out of the six months reported. There is either some error in data recording or an attempt at misrepresentation.

There are inconsistencies in data reporting across various sections. For instance, the number of ‘lost’ units or revenue collected varies slightly in many a table. The pendency breakdown of defective meters often doesn’t add up. This raises doubts on not only operational efficiency but also on recovery figures as the units consumed will not match the units billed.

The failure is evident across IESCO, LESCO, FESCO, GEPCO and PESCO. These discrepancies, seemingly minor, complicate data reconciliation and erode confidence in the report’s overall accuracy.

A fair and sustainable water policy must be built on ecological realities, not fantasies. It should respect historical rights, empower all provinces and be guided by inclusive federal mechanisms like the Council of Common Interests.

Discrepancies in recovery ratios and revenue figures further illustrate these issues. HESCO’s data, for instance, shows differing figures for the amount billed and recovered between the Billing & Collection – July 2024 table and the Recovery — Tariff Wise Consumers, Units Sold, Revenue Billed & Rate Per Unit table. Similarly, PESCO’s data has inconsistencies in the amount and units billed across different tables.

All effective tariff calculations rely on these figures. This is why the variations necessitate a thorough review to ensure accuracy. Moreover, there is a wide skew in the tariff applicable under HESCO and SEPCO compared with the rest of the DISCOs. Both SEPCO and HESCO consumers seem to enjoy lower tariffs rate. This could explain their unusually high (over 100 percent) recovery rates.

Consumer complaints documentation is another interesting area. Such was the grievance handling performance at some DISCOs, notably GEPCO, that it resolved more complaints than it got during July-September. This suggests that it either had a a significant backlog that it went through or that the data is misleading.

There are many instances where the data requires explanatory notes provided by the regulatory body but none have been included. LESCO, for instance, boasts a recovery ratio of 108 percent with a tariff around Rs 41. FESCO, with a lower tariff, however, has posted a recovery ratio of 99 percent. The report’s analysis of transmission and dispatch losses often fails to explain the underlying causes.

Recovery ratios may be misleading due to a lack of transparency regarding disconnections and write-offs. Apparent improvements in recovery rates might reflect use of coercive tools (for instance, aggressive disconnection policies) or accounting adjustments rather than sustainable improvements in collection strategies.

The report also suffers from broad methodological weaknesses that limit its effectiveness as a diagnostic tool. Data discrepancies aside, the Performance Reports shed light on the standings of the DISCOs which have been facing a new set of challenges over the last few years — the biggest being changing energy consumption patterns.

The recent rapid solarisation has led to fewer customers being entirely dependent on the grid for their power needs. This is reflected in the low utilisation factor of generation plants across the country. Stunted economic and industrial growth too has suppressed demand. Resultantly, the utilisation factor does not surpass two-thirds across any type of generation. The average factor was less than 50 even during the peak summer months (July-September). The underutilisation results in higher costs for the consumers as they have to bear a higher portion of the fixed costs incurred regardless of utilisation.

The writer is a senior economic correspondent at The News, He can be reached at @jawwadar