ISLAMABAD: The Independent System Market Operator (ISMO) has reportedly opposed to include a 500-megawatt Trident Hybrid Wind and Solar PV Project in the Indicative Generation Capacity Expansion Plan (IGCEP), citing less demand renewable demand at the day time.
According to sources , the Council has directed ISMO to provide documentary evidence explaining the treatment of the JCM/Aerem hybrid project and why the Trident project was not subjected to a similar simulation exercise.
The meeting, chaired by Additional Secretary SIFC at the Prime Minister’s Office, was convened following a request from Najd Gateway Holding Company, the sponsor of the Trident project, for a fact-finding review of its treatment under IGCEP/PLEXOS modelling.
The project is reportedly structured as a private business-to-business (B2B) arrangement with K-Electric at approximately 2.70 US cents per kilowatt-hour, without any sovereign guarantee or capacity payment.
The company informed SIFC that its project had been shifted to July 1, 2036, placing it one day outside the IGCEP/PLEXOS model window. It also contended that the JCM/Aerem hybrid project, with an indicated tariff of approximately 3.20 US cents per kWh, had received re-simulation and expedited treatment.
The sponsor sought restoration of Trident in IGCEP 2026 and, if that was not possible, its inclusion as a named candidate against the unallocated 556MW wind block for 2029-30.
During deliberations, ISMO reportedly explained that the JCM project had a larger wind component, which enabled it to be absorbed in the modelling software, whereas Trident was predominantly solar.
However, the meeting minutes record that ISMO saw no inherent disadvantage in the Trident project, while maintaining that system requirements also needed to be considered.
ISMO committed to sharing its techno-economic analysis with the project side. It also informed participants that the sponsor’s letter had been received only two days before the meeting and that a response would be provided by the end of that week.
The meeting also noted a communication gap, with the project sponsor reportedly receiving no communication from ISMO regarding its case.
Following detailed deliberations, SIFC decided that ISMO would provide evidence of the JCM project’s treatment and explain why Trident had not been given a simulation exercise.
The Council further directed ISMO to share its requirements and undertake optimisation for all projects on an equal, fair and non-discriminatory basis.
SIFC was to share questions raised during the meeting, while ISMO was required to provide responses, along with its techno-economic analysis, by October 15, 2026, close of business.
ISMO was also directed to engage with the project sponsor, while a follow-up meeting was scheduled at SIFC for October 20, 2026.
The questions annexed to the meeting minutes indicate that SIFC has sought a comprehensive explanation of the technical and procedural basis for Trident’s exclusion from the modelling exercise.
ISMO has been asked whether Trident was ever included as a project-specific candidate in PLEXOS and, if so, to provide the corresponding output.
It has also been asked to explain the original commercial operation date (COD) used for the project, who changed it to July 1, 2036, and why the decision was taken, together with the relevant minutes.
The Council has further questioned what would happen if June 30, 2036, were used instead, and whether the 556MW unallocated wind block actually exists in FY2029-30.
Another central question concerns why generic wind was modelled instead of the Trident project itself, and precisely what information JCM provided that Trident had not supplied.
SIFC has also sought an explanation of why JCM was allowed project-specific re-simulation or Addendum-II treatment and whether Trident would be afforded an identical process if all required data were submitted.
The Council has also raised questions about the economic implications of the project for K-Electric and the national power system.
ISMO has been asked to establish whether Trident, at a verified tariff of 2.70 US cents per kWh, would reduce total K-Electric and national-system net present value (NPV), and to quantify the impact.
The minutes further seek details of transmission augmentation requirements, the entity responsible for financing such augmentation, and the implications for National Grid exports to K-Electric following commissioning of the project.
ISMO has also been asked to identify the thermal generation that would be displaced by Trident and quantify the annual generation displacement in gigawatt-hours.
The Council has sought an assessment of the resulting subsidy and circular debt implications, while asking ISMO to provide quantified reasons if it declines to optimise the project rather than merely stating that IGCEP does not permit such treatment.
The questions also cover the wind and solar shares of the JCM project, whether a solar capacity limit exists, and what share or threshold determines when a project is considered absorbed in the modelling process.
ISMO has been asked whether such a threshold is documented and to provide the written procedure for seeking project-specific simulations or an addendum, including the authority responsible for decisions and the applicable timeline.
The Council has also sought the complete dated sequence of the JCM project, covering receipt of the request, simulation, issuance of the addendum and NEPRA approval.
