AIRLINK 178.16 Decreased By ▼ -4.55 (-2.49%)
BOP 10.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-3.92%)
CNERGY 8.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.49%)
CPHL 92.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.71 (-1.82%)
FCCL 45.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.51 (-1.1%)
FFL 15.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.73%)
FLYNG 28.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.18%)
HUBC 142.11 Decreased By ▼ -3.67 (-2.52%)
HUMNL 12.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.69%)
KEL 4.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.13%)
KOSM 5.92 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (2.25%)
MLCF 66.29 Decreased By ▼ -1.01 (-1.5%)
OGDC 214.36 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (0.51%)
PACE 6.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.99%)
PAEL 45.90 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-4.06%)
PIAHCLA 17.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-1.52%)
PIBTL 9.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.51%)
POWER 14.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.42%)
PPL 169.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-0.49%)
PRL 33.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.41%)
PTC 21.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-3.06%)
SEARL 93.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.64 (-1.73%)
SSGC 41.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.99 (-2.35%)
SYM 15.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.96%)
TELE 7.68 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.81%)
TPLP 9.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.4%)
TRG 66.98 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.13%)
WAVESAPP 9.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.61%)
WTL 1.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.48%)
YOUW 3.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
AIRLINK 178.16 Decreased By ▼ -4.55 (-2.49%)
BOP 10.04 Decreased By ▼ -0.41 (-3.92%)
CNERGY 8.22 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-2.49%)
CPHL 92.50 Decreased By ▼ -1.71 (-1.82%)
FCCL 45.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.51 (-1.1%)
FFL 15.90 Decreased By ▼ -0.28 (-1.73%)
FLYNG 28.50 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.18%)
HUBC 142.11 Decreased By ▼ -3.67 (-2.52%)
HUMNL 12.81 Decreased By ▼ -0.22 (-1.69%)
KEL 4.36 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-1.13%)
KOSM 5.92 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (2.25%)
MLCF 66.29 Decreased By ▼ -1.01 (-1.5%)
OGDC 214.36 Increased By ▲ 1.08 (0.51%)
PACE 6.02 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.99%)
PAEL 45.90 Decreased By ▼ -1.94 (-4.06%)
PIAHCLA 17.52 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-1.52%)
PIBTL 9.77 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-1.51%)
POWER 14.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.42%)
PPL 169.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.84 (-0.49%)
PRL 33.18 Decreased By ▼ -0.82 (-2.41%)
PTC 21.55 Decreased By ▼ -0.68 (-3.06%)
SEARL 93.40 Decreased By ▼ -1.64 (-1.73%)
SSGC 41.11 Decreased By ▼ -0.99 (-2.35%)
SYM 15.46 Decreased By ▼ -0.15 (-0.96%)
TELE 7.68 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (2.81%)
TPLP 9.85 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-1.4%)
TRG 66.98 Increased By ▲ 0.09 (0.13%)
WAVESAPP 9.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.06 (-0.61%)
WTL 1.33 Decreased By ▼ -0.02 (-1.48%)
YOUW 3.82 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.26%)
BR100 12,517 Decreased By -158.7 (-1.25%)
BR30 37,643 Decreased By -496.1 (-1.3%)
KSE100 117,226 Decreased By -1204.2 (-1.02%)
KSE30 36,020 Decreased By -383.5 (-1.05%)

Pakistan has a National Energy Policy. But like most things in Pakistan, it is not necessarily implemented. And you can blame PML-N government for not following the already established priorities - for it is a legacy inherited from the previous setup. Reportedly, the ECC in its recent meeting has decided to supply natural gas to fertiliser industry throughout the Rabi season on priority over the power sector.
Yes, Pakistan's is an agri economy, yes the need for timely input cannot be ignored, but why the change in priorities? Especially when, the gas allocation priority was one of the very few steps actually hailed in the energy sector reform process so far.
Without going into the countless arguments over actual economic benefits of usage of natural gas in one sector over another, the question why does the priority keep changing hands every other season? Inconsistency defeats the purpose of having a policy.
Lets not forget, the power shortfall has not receded, and it won't relent even in the winters. We have not yet had any additional sources of gas supply, to make sense of a sudden shift in allocation priorities. It would have made some sense, had there been more gas in the system. There has not been a study done, or at least released by the government, on the actual economic cost-benefit analysis of gas usage.
There are several studies out there that favour either fertiliser or power over one another. Either the government should own one or conduct a thorough professional study of its own, to let one and all know, where will gas be used best. In absence of such studies, one ends up having doubts over such decisions, even if the motive is purely an economic one and the intention is pure.
Pakistan is already guilty of allowing excessive usage of natural gas to the domestic sector, that too, at very cheap rates. This is counterproductive and the failure to incentivize domestic users for alternative fuels is not helping either.
Then, the menace of CNG has stayed, and the news that if and when the LNG comes, it will be used for transport, will not help matters. If the strategy was to provide gas to fertiliser on priority over power, at the expense of CNG, it would have made sense. But the lobbies are too strong it appears, and rationale takes a backseat.
The decision taken in the ECC without taking on board the stakeholders would again backfire. Policies should not be altered on whims. Government would do well to have a transparent study conducted and allocate gas accordingly. This is not asking too much. Had there been a centralised energy ministry, differences would never have occurred amongst industries, finance, water & power and petroleum ministries. It is about time, a concrete policy is adopted on the back of strong research study that shuts the debate once and for all.

Comments

Comments are closed.