MEPCO Energizes Twin 132 kV Lines: Ratepayer-Funded Overbuild or Needed Capacity?

On July 1, 2026, MEPCO energized twin 132 kV Noorpur, Pakpattan Rail Transmission Lines, each spanning 27 kilometers, at a combined cost of Rs 815 million (about $9.8M USD)^[1]. The project, executed under the supervision of CEO Engineer Gul Muhammad Zahid, also included line bays and interfacing work^[1]. On its face, this looks like routine grid reinforcement, but in a sector where monopoly utilities earn a guaranteed return on every rupee of capital spent, the question is never simply whether new wires are needed, but whether they are the cheapest way to meet the need.

Before approving any new line, regulators should force a comparison against grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) that can often defer or eliminate new construction: dynamic line ratings (which can find 10, 40% headroom on existing lines), advanced conductors (double capacity on existing towers), and storage-as-transmission. MEPCO's announcement shows no evidence such alternatives were evaluated. The utility that profits from building new lines has no incentive to choose a cheaper non-wires solution, that's a structural flaw, not a scandal, but it's one that costs ratepayers every time.

Nor is there any mention of competitive bidding. When transmission projects are competitively bid, as FERC Order 1000 requires for regional lines in the U.S., costs come in 20, 40% lower than incumbent cost-plus builds. Pakistan's power sector has its own version of that problem: Discos like MEPCO operate as vertically integrated monopolies, and there is no independent transmission monitor to scrutinize project classification. MEPCO's own recent record includes a 0.5 km double-circuit line for Rs 39 million (about $468k USD)^[2], over Rs 78 million (about $936k USD) per km, compared to roughly Rs 15 million (about $180k USD) per km for the Noorpur-Pakpattan lines. That variance alone demands explanation.

The real question: who defined the need, and who verified the alternatives? Without an independent planning process that screens for GETs and requires competitive bids, every new line carries the risk of gold-plating. A fair process would require: (1) a transparent needs assessment that includes non-wires alternatives; (2) competitive bidding for all projects above a modest threshold; and (3) a share of congestion savings returned to ratepayers, not just to the utility's bottom line.