Traders ask NEPRA to reject KESC petition for tariff hike

KARACHI - SITE Association of Industry has asked the NEPRA to reject the KESC petition for increase in the consumer-end tariff, which has sought increase in the deposit rates and change in the terms of tariff.
SITE Association of Industry in its statement issued on Saturday has preferred to become intervener in the matter which will be heard in Karachi on 7th September 2009 by NEPRA in local hotel.
The propose issues to be discussed in the said meeting includes whether the tariff petition of KESC has been competently filed. The Association considers that the petition has not been filed with the legal clearance by the situation surrounding the privatisation.
The Association feels that the basic question regarding maintainability and admissibility of the very petition has not been framed which is the basic question involved in the matter. It is a matter of record that the KESC was privatised through an agreement signed and executed by three parties namely Privatisation Commission (PC), Ministry of Water and Power (MW&P) and KESC, which contains the mandatory terms and conditions of such privatisation. The said agreement appears to have been supported by an Implementation Agreement (IA) as well. It is also a matter of record that a multi-year tariff was determined for KESC in case No: NEPRA/TRF-14/KESC-2002 on the basis of which KESC was privatised.
Since the multi-year tariff has already been determined with the consent and concurrence of three parties named above and as such the increase/change therein cannot be claimed by KESC subsequently. Without prejudice it is to point out here that the identical petition filed earlier by KESC was declined by NEPRA on the ground that the same did not contain the concurrence of Privatisation Commission and Ministry of Water &Power. The revised petition now filed by KESC, which has been admitted, does not show that the required concurrence has been obtained by KESC from PC as well. Under the circumstances neither the petition filed by KESC is maintainable in law nor it has such merits for admission and the admission order appears to have been made by 'NEPRA in haste whereas it was not liable to be admitted for want of aforesaid legal requirements.
In case the petition of KESC is entertained by NEPRA and the prayers made therein are allowed that will amount to negate the very purpose of privatisation of KESC in the larger public interest. It is submitted that while privatising, the tariff was determined binding KESC not to change / increase the same subsequently. In case the KESC is allowed to keep changing / increasing the tariff, the very purpose of its privatisation shall be frustrated and will cause hardship to the public.
It is pleaded that the admission order admitting the petition filed by KESC may kindly be recalled and the petition may kindly be rejected summarily. Without prejudice it is submitted that the Association will definitely participate in the public hearing scheduled on 7th Sept 2009 and raise / record its contentions, objections and concerns against the merits of the petition as well.