THE recent crippling spate of loadshedding, which has subsided for the time being because of heavy water releases from dams but may return shortly, has triggered a debate among experts on the causes and magnitude of power crisis.

Critics blame Pakistan Electric Power Company (Pepco) for huge loadshedding. They allege that it was more a matter of negligence and incompetence on the part of the company.

The Pepco officials, however, put up a spirited defence to heavy loadshedding saying that factors beyond their control necessitated it, and there was nothing they could do to reduce it.

The traducers, who include some former members (power) of Wapda, citing the Pepco figures, claim that the company could have easily reduced shortages by at least 66 per cent had it been alive to its duties and responsibilities.

On February 4, before water releases from both dams started rising, the Pepco power sheet depicted a maximum shortage of 3,254MW (5pm-7pm) and a minimum deficit of 1,559MW (9pm to 12am). But, on the same day, the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) fell short of production by a staggering 1,790MW – some 1,294MW on account of forced outages (repair work) and 496MW for permitted shutdowns.

Similarly, Pepco’s own thermal units also fell short on generation by 1,084MW – some 375MW for forced outages, 160MW for allowed shutdowns and the rest because of fuel shortages.

On both these accounts, a power shortage of 2,874MW was registered on a day when the entire system deficit stood at a maximum of 3,254MW. Had Pepco woken up to its duty on time, the loadshedding could have been reduced by at least 2,000MW even if accidental closures are deducted from loadshedding schedule.

If one adds another fall in generation by 820MW on the same day and is taken as a case of mismanagement, the consumers could have had surplus power supply rather than suffering 13-hour loadshedding.

Managing the forced outages that do not hurt the consumers is the basic duty of Pepco. Normally, such scheduled repairs are allowed during the months of August and September when water levels in dams are high and could compensate for loss of generation. Allowing them during the crunch months hardly makes sense. The IPPs are duty bound, under the Pepco monitoring, to keep eight days oil stocks. If they fail, whose fault is this? Instead of passing the buck, the company should have tackled the problem.

The rental power stations, which produce around 360MW, were assured constant supply when they were commissioned. Now they are the first to go off line and Pepco is left to pay the rent without getting generation.

The thermal units are allowed to seek shutdowns and forced outages but it could not go beyond 6.5 per cent, which means that thermal generation should not have reduced beyond 750MW. Even if that is allowed, the volume of loadshedding should not have been more than 20 to three hours instead of 13 hours.

These all are management issues and Pepco needs to resolve them. Letting issues snowball into a national crisis is something that Pepco should not be allowed to do.

But Pepco officials contested this version, saying that the IPPs are allowed to go 10 per cent off line on the account of forced outages and 10 per cent for regular shutdowns. So is the case of Pepco’s own thermal units, as most of them have outlived their life span and should have been replaced. These units never went beyond their allowed limit.

There are three ways to look at the generation potential i.e. nameplate capacity, de-rated capacity and dependable potential. Unfortunately, the difference among all three of them is substantial and so would be calculations made on the basis of them. Thus, the entire picture depends on which capacity is taken as a reference point. Pepco officials say that their critics are guilty of taking wrong reference point.

The company had been suffering power shortage of 500MW to 1,000MW on account of fuel shortages. This shortage, obviously, cannot be blamed on Pepco. Another 750MW deficit was registered due to gas shortage. If one takes out all these figures from the company account, the reasons for huge loadshedding are not hard to decipher. More than half of loadshedding was caused by oil and gas shortages.

They hope that the induction of some 27 more IPPs during this year would largely solve the problem.

Former Wapda chairman Sahmsul Muluk, however, laments that things were going the wrong way as far as power crisis was concerned. “If oil and gas requirements of the existing IPPs cannot be met, from where the needs of additional IPPs would be met,” he questions. It is an exercise in futility and the successive governments are guilty of undertaking a myopic approach.

Currently, the oil prices are at their lowest. If the government cannot afford it now, what it would do if the prices rise again. The entire planning is based on a source which is not indigenous and supply is not assured. Pakistan has water and it must rely on hydro generation that is cheap and local. Coal could be another source for power generation. Even if the government has to rely on IPPs for the time being, it should get dual cycle machines that could be run both on oil and coal, he said.

Electricity from Tarbella Dam costs 49 paisa per unit, whereas Pepco is paying around three cents as a rent to rental plants. The cost of electricity from new power projects would be hard to meet the need of poverty stricken consumers, he claimed.