The recent attempt by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) to hold electricity providers accountable for poor supply is no more than a scratch on the surface of the problems with that sector. While it is appreciated that electricity providers are reminded to keep to the terms of their obligations to consumers, the NERC needs to go further to remove discriminatory supply and billing to consumers thus branded into different categories.
Besides the fact that most of the consumers categorised under Band A are regularly short-changed on the number of hours they are expected to be supplied power, it remains unacceptable that they should be billed higher rates than their counterparts in other bands. Assuming that the DisCos are unable to guarantee an equal supply of electricity to all areas, the commonsensical approach is to simply ensure that those who receive more power will pay more, on account of what they receive; not on discriminatory grounds; many Nigerians have publicly protested their aversion to the band-A, for the simple reason of this discrimination and undue exploitation.
The best way to achieve the goal of equity and fairness in billing is to ensure that all subscribers are metered, a condition that DisCos continually fail to meet. That failure should attract the first ire of the regulatory body, more than anything else. If Nigerians are deprived of their entitlement to regular supply of electricity, they should not be punished, by subjecting them to pay for services not rendered.
The NERC recently ordered the downgrade of 18 electricity feeders over failure to meet the minimum 20-hour power supply to electricity consumers under the Band A tariffs. In addition, eight Distribution Companies (DisCos) were ordered by NERC to compensate electricity consumers across 213 feeders for load-shedding for failing to deliver the minimum hours stipulated under the tariff regime tied to the number of hours of electricity supply per day.
The implementation of the Service-Based Tariff (SBT) scheme under which charges payable by electricity consumers based on hours of power supply are regulated has been fraught with challenges, eliciting widespread resentment from corporate as well as household electricity consumers in Nigerians. While public power supply is expected to come at a cost to ensure stability and sustainability in the long run, the SBT scheme has failed to take into cognisance the imperative of equitable access to electricity envisaged under Goal 7 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (UN).
As specified by the SDG, stable electricity is crucial for inclusive productive engagement with access to “affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all” as preconditions. To this extent, it is the legitimate duty of the government to enhance access to stable electricity to propel economic growth and enhance service delivery, to improve quality of life.
While the government seems poised to take decisive steps to improve power generation and stable supply of electricity going by the planned reassessment and reorganisation of DisCos, access to electricity should nevertheless be equitable and without discrimination under the guise of tariff segregation. The challenge of stable electricity in Nigeria has remained the bane of industrial production as well as commercial activities with a negative impact on entrepreneurship development and livelihood engagements at the domestic level.
To ameliorate the sufferings of electricity consumers, the prevailing SBT regime should be reviewed to reflect the existing reality; taking into consideration the need to enhance access to electricity without exploitation and discrimination on account of tariff disparity. Since access to electricity is critical to attaining the objective of SDG 2030, the disparity in the specified 20-hour minimum daily access to electricity for consumers under the Band A category and the minimum of 4 hours daily access for Band E is objectionable and should be reviewed without further delay.
So far, the prevailing privatisation regime in the power sector remains largely monopolistic while a lot of gaps still exist with regard to billings and service delivery. While electricity consumers placed under the Band A tariff are expected to have access to a minimum of 20 hours duration of power supply per day, there are complaints of inadequate power supply despite the exorbitant tariffs. Consumers placed under other categories of tariff do not have access to power supply despite the fewer hours allotted to their tariff.
It is rather unfortunate that a good number of electricity consumers across the country are yet to be connected to the prepaid regime more than two decades after an alternative to the postpaid system was introduced to encourage investments in the power sector and to improve the supply of electricity through effective remittances of electricity charges. While it is appreciated that a steady electricity supply would attract commensurate charges, it should be emphasised that a discriminatory policy that restricts the number of hours of electricity supply not only violates the principle of equity which guarantees ample access to public amenities but also an indictment on relevant authorities for prioritising selective services rather than make electricity available to Nigerians. There is a need for the reassessment of the existing policy to make availability consummate with tariff applicable.
It is disturbing that the Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu has been at the forefront of defending the subsisting tariff system based on a minimum number of hours of electricity supply which, more often than not, the electricity distribution companies have failed to deliver on. The minister should understand that enforcing discriminatory access to electricity violates citizens’ equal right to public service and constitutes a disservice to the agenda of enhancing inclusive development. Relevant authorities should demonstrate more commitment to the provision of prepaid meters to enable customers to effectively discharge their obligations to servicing costs of electricity in meeting the requirement of sustainability.
More importantly, the government should fulfil its promise of addressing the flaws associated with the acquisition and management of existing DisCos as a way of creating an enabling environment that will make the power sector thrive for a stable electricity supply across the country. It is lamentable that the proprietors of existing DisCos have neither effectively managed the electricity assets inherited nor prepared to invest to upgrade the assets for efficient service delivery. Beyond addressing the inadequacy of DisCos, we expect the federal government in partnership with government at the sub-national levels as well as relevant stakeholders to undertake a holistic assessment of the power sector to erase the prevailing monopolistic regimes in power transmission, generation, and distribution which have become unsustainable.
The Minister of Power should be a driving force for exploring the potential of the new Electricity Act to ensure diversification and generate public revenue. It is not enough that the law exists or entitles entities other than the federal government to generate and distribute electricity. Somebody, and the minister is appropriate in this regard, should be telling and showing Nigerians how to tap the benefits inherent in the new law. Sadly, now, the main stakeholders appear fixated on the existing power structure, which is decrepit. What Nigerians desire after enduring many decades of epileptic power supply and exploitation is a well-thought-out policy with appropriate facilities in place for value-added service delivery.
