REGULAR supply of electricity has become an intractable problem in Nigeria. It is one challenge that has defied every regime and administration since independence. It is also an area where successive governments have sunk huge amounts of resources without achieving results. It now seems that the more funds are injected into the sector, the less power is being generated and supplied. Yet Nigeria has more than enough resources to generate sufficient electricity from different sources at less cost and with lesser dissipation of energy.
The issue obviously has never been the lack of sector strategic policies nor has it been availability of funds, but it seems more of a lack of diligent focus and implementation. Funds meant to improve the sector have often been misappropriated and much energy subsequently expended on fruitless probes rather than on generating electricity for consumption. The people, who are already traumatised by epileptic power supply, are in addition periodically threatened and sometimes visited with tariff increases on supplies that are hardly satisfactory.
Perennially, the country faces the need for higher electricity supply and improved grid reliability, even as it faces increased security challenges. Apart from the loss of energy as a result of long-range grid transportation, the massive infrastructure needed for the system is susceptible to theft and often prone to vandalism, leading to incessant disruption of supply and system failure. More than that, the systemic corruption that has seen huge contract failures in the sector has compounded the seemingly intractable challenge, with the consumers bearing the brunt of blackouts and tariff adjustments.
Some recent moves to tackle the challenges associated with long-distance hydro and thermal grid systems, including the renewable energy option also seem to have suffered afflictions similar to those of the hydro and thermal systems. The Renewable Energy Master Plan (REMP) which sought to increase the supply of renewable electricity from 13% of total electricity generation in 2015 to 23% in 2025 and 36% by 2030 is still at the incubation stage. Going by the plan, renewable electricity was to account for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption by 2025. About a year to the target, it doesn’t seem it would be realised. The electrification rates as envisaged by the plan are also far from being achieved. Instead of an increased power supply, what the people get is a periodic increase in the cost of usage.
The Goodluck Jonathan administration had unbundled the power management structure and brought private entrepreneurs into the electricity generation and distribution network across the country. The private power companies, which saw to the death of the behemoth which went by several appellations including National Electricity Power Authority (NEPA) and Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), do not seem to fare better. The distribution companies (DisCos) complain incessantly of unsustainable tariffs and request consistently for a cost-reflective price regime.
Apparently to assuage their demands and stem further excuses, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) approved a band-based tariff increase. The development expectedly was greeted with loud protestations and doomsday predictions. The people say the action is insensitive, given the debilitating state of the economy and the excruciating impact already exerted on the people; and the business sector fears that manufacturing firms and SMEs might shut down due to heavy overhead costs.
However, those behind the policy claim it was meant to kill two birds with one stone – to reduce the subsidy load on the government by transferring it to the few that consume the bulk of electricity, and still maintain subsidy for the vast majority in the low economic bracket. They insist that the new tariff regime does not affect more than two million consumers, in terms of charges. However, preference in terms of supply would be given to those on Band A with a minimum supply time of 20 hours a day. They have to pay 231% more per unit. Bands B, C, D and E still maintain the old tariffs of 63, 50, 45 and 40, with minimum supply time of 16, 12, 8 and 4 hours a day respectively. Only 15% of electricity users or about 1.5 million consumers who supposedly enjoy 20+ hours of electricity supply daily and have property or live within Band A of the power distribution scheme are affected by the new tariff.
NERC tried to explain the impact of the new tariff regime by saying that the low-income cadre, including those living in rural and under-served areas, are not affected by the new tariff, that more than 500 feeders have been downgraded from Band A to ensure that Nigerians are not short-changed. “Where the Disco fails to meet the committed service level to a Band A feeder for seven consecutive days, the feeder shall be automatically downgraded to the recorded level of supply in accordance with applicable framework.”
Such explanations are usually received with much scepticism because it has become routine for agencies to make promises and then under-deliver. Already there is an avalanche of complaints emanating from the Band A camps to the effect that since the inception of the new tariff regime, daily electricity supply hardly hits the 20+ hours mark; if anything, they have been experiencing fewer supply hours.
The loudness of complaints against tariff adjustments is not so much about the rate increase, it is about the ability of the power agencies to live up to expectations. The people would likely complain less about tariff adjustments if they get service for their money. It is the lack of service delivery that increases the tempo of complaints and protests. Those responsible for the generation and supply of electricity should focus primary attention on improving power supply. Demanding for an increase in tariff should ordinarily follow better service and the need for further improvement.
Unfortunately, even with the poor service delivery, the power companies and third-party agents engage in sharp practices and further subject consumers to excruciating pains. In some places, the companies deliberately refuse to supply electricity metres and then engage in estimated billing, charging consumers for services not provided. Some agencies threaten consumers and disconnect them for challenging such obnoxious acts. They charge dubious disconnection fees even when such disconnections were ab initio done brazenly.
In such situations, consumers never get justice. In frustration, they sometimes resort to physical attacks on staff and destruction of their equipment in some areas when the injustice and level of insensitivity become unbearable.
Unfortunately, a country as vast and well endowed as Nigeria is still struggling with a primary requirement as electricity supply when other lesser countries have long progressed onto higher technological issues. This disability has cost the country massive economic returns that would have accrued from manufacturing and services concerns that would have blossomed in an electricity-sufficient environment.
The present administration in the country should prioritise electricity infrastructure build-up and put this recurrent nightmare of insufficient electricity behind the people. The people deserve a better living, and sufficient electricity supply is a fundamental factor. Attention should be given to the rehabilitation of moribund electricity infrastructure, resuscitation of dormant facilities, completion of on-going projects, giving marching orders to distribution companies to do the needful, and prosecuting those found to be complicit in the poor state of electricity supply in the country.
