Power tariff for IPPs

Recent confirmation of NEPRA reviving (partially) the '94 power policy is frightening to all those who would like to see lower power tariffs for industrial growth. (B.R. March 22).
It is not understood how attempts are being made to change a recent decision by ECC so quickly. It was only in December 2005 that a correct decision was taken to only allow gas to (efficient) combined cycle power stations.
Again, vested interests have taken over and the same wrong decision of allowing gas to a "reciprocating engine technology" is being proposed. How can we allow inefficient (44%) power plants when ECC has already issued orders to provide gas to combined cycle power station only, which are at least 30% more efficient that the proposed recip. engines.
As the process of privatisation has already started and the KESC's good work initiated, why should NEPRA start this confusion of both types of power plants and fuels to be used.
This should be left to the privatised utilities themselves to propose as recently announced by the Managing Director of KESC. It was music to the ears to hear KESC confirm that they will be installing efficient power plants to meet both power shortage problems and to reduce power generation costs.
NEPRA has again proposed the mistakes of the '94 energy policy, by not only allowing inefficient recip. engines but also proposing diesel (at 13.8 US Cents/kWH) and RFO as standby fuels.
It is really frightening that we have learnt no lesson from the serious problems created by the '94 energy policy and are ready to ruin the countries' industries by escalating power tariffs.
Once ECC has taken the correct decision in favour of efficient power plants, NEPRA should have built on this and not propose a total deviation, back to inefficient expensive power stations. Ofcourse, it was NEPRA that unfortunately approved a 94-MW Combined Cycle Power Station for Karachi at an exorbitant tariff due to only 44% efficiency. What good will ECC's decision brings if NEPRA cannot ensure efficient power stations?
Standby fuel should be changed to LPG (for 2-3 months' use, depending on gas supply) and no use of diesel or RFO (both with high sulphur contents) should be advocated. Both these fuels are very expensive and more so, highly polluting, specially for power plants near population centres or agricultural lands.
The advantage of natural gas & LPG as fuel would also result in much lower capital costs for combined cycle power stations as gas turbines for clean fuels are both less expensive and with higher power production availability, and thus lower tariffs can be negotiated fur such plants with proposed fuels.
LPG-based supply systems are now a reality and such facilities can be built for new combined-cycle power plants for best economy and lowest pollution levels.
It is time NEPRA accepted this challenge for the good of the country and ensured efficient power plants, with lower tariffs and reduced pollution levels.