Engro Powergen Qadirpur seeks invoice processing under Pakistan power purchase agreement

Traders Union
All News
Business & Wealth
Companies
Engro Powergen invoice processing

Highlights

Engro Powergen Qadirpur Limited challenged CPPA-G's and Nepra's rejection of invoices over missing SROs or Gazette notifications, citing long-standing tariff-linked practices.
EPQL argues the power purchase agreement mandates invoice processing based on Nepra tariff determinations, not formal notifications, referencing Nepra clarifications issued on July 22 and August 19, 2026.
EPQL warns payment disruption from this dispute is harming its cash flows and ability to meet contractual and financing obligations, urging urgent regulatory intervention.

Contract dispute over tariff-linked invoices

As reported by Pakistan Business Recorder, Engro Powergen Qadirpur Limited, or EPQL, has written to CPPA-G and Nepra to challenge the rejection or return of invoices submitted for electricity supplied under its power purchase agreement, arguing that missing SROs or Official Gazette notifications should not by themselves block processing.

In a September 28, 2026 letter addressed to the chief executive officer of CPPA-G, the Nepra chairman and the regulator's registrar, the company says CPPA-G's position departs from a longstanding practice under which invoices are processed on the basis of Nepra tariff determinations published on the regulator's website. The dispute centres on the implementation of the power purchase agreement first executed on October 26, 2007, between the then National Transmission and Dispatch Company Limited and the company now known as EPQL.

EPQL says the issue is not whether statutory requirements apply, but whether delays in formal notification can be used to reject invoices and disrupt payments due under the agreement. It cites Section 11(7) of the Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997, Rule 18(2) of the Nepra tariff rules, and clarifications issued by Nepra on July 22 and August 19, 2026.

The company argues that monthly fuel price adjustments and quarterly tariff indexations determined by Nepra should be distinguished from the later administrative process of issuing an SRO or publishing a decision in the Official Gazette. It also says the agreement does not allow CPPA-G to reject an invoice solely because a tariff determination has not yet been formally notified, and instead provides defined procedures for clarification and invoice disputes under Sections 9.5 and 9.7.

Cash flow risks for power producers

EPQL also points to Clause 12.9 of Part V of Schedule I to the agreement, saying it covers periods when revised tariff adjustments have not yet been notified by allowing the last-notified adjustments to continue until new ones are formally issued, with payments revised afterward. In the company's view, rejecting invoices during that interim period is inconsistent with the contractual framework.

The company says the power purchase agreement has been implemented for more than 15 years with invoices processed according to Nepra tariff decisions and the timelines set in the relevant arrangements. It adds that the tariff structure, including a 30-day execution-related term and the working capital cost component in the capacity purchase price framework, supports payment arrangements based on established processing timelines.

EPQL warns that the disputed practice is affecting its cash flows and its ability to meet contractual and financing obligations. It says power producers should not be penalised for delays arising from statutory or administrative steps controlled by government authorities, and it is seeking urgent intervention from CPPA-G and Nepra so invoices are processed under the agreement rather than rejected because notification has not yet been issued.

In our earlier article, we covered Pakistan’s consideration of an export-oriented aluminium smelter at Port Qasim and the proposed back-to-back power purchase agreement structure involving CPPA-G and Port Qasim Electric Power Company. The piece also explained how the project was tied to a conditional settlement of the long-running late payment interest dispute, including a proposed upfront payment and approvals timeline intended to secure the power supply arrangement without new tariff subsidies or sovereign guarantees.

This material may contain third-party opinions, none of the data and information on this webpage constitutes investment advice according to our Disclaimer. While we adhere to strict Editorial Integrity, this post may contain references to products from our partners.