Economy

Poor electricity supply persists as sector makes N260b from tariff increase

4 Mins read

•Stakeholders Insist SBT Failing, Call For Establishment Of More DisCos
•We Still Pay For Poles, Transformers, Cable, Consumers Cry Out
•NERC Fails To Publish Sector’s Performance Figure Months After Tariff Increase

Premised on improved electricity service to consumers, Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry through the Service Based Tariff (SBT) may have succeeded in improving revenue collection by about N260b in the last four months, but to the detriment of the masses.

President Muhammadu Buhari had, in September last year, vigorously defended increase in electricity tariff tagged Service Based Tariff (SBT), stressing that it was the only gateway to improving power supply to the masses.

Speaking at the First Year Ministerial Performance Review Retreat for Ministers, Permanent Secretary and top government functionaries at the State House Conference Centre in Aso Villa, Buhari, represented by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo said: “The other painful adjustment we have had to make in recent days is a review of the electricity tariff regime.

“The recent service-based tariff adjustment by the DisCos has been a source of concern to many of us. Let me say frankly that like many Nigerians, I have been very unhappy about the quality of service given by the Discos. That is why we have directed that tariff adjustments be made, only on the basis of guaranteed improvement in service.”

While the SBT is billing consumers depending on the hour of electricity they enjoy per day, the World Bank in a latest survey had insisted that 78 per cent of power consumers in Nigeria get less than 12 hours of daily supply of electricity. But government data showed that above 45 per cent of Nigerians, categorised under band A, B, C are enjoying between 13 to 24 hours of electricity daily.

Special Adviser to the President on Infrastructure, Ahmad Rufai Zakari had told The Guardian STB had raised aggregate average tariff by 36 per cent, adding that collections by DisCos in the sector went up by above 60 per cent.

The implication of the financial improvement, according to him, is that the sector recorded N65b in collection in the January billing cycle. The indication is that the sector would have made about N260b in the first four months of 2021, a development that should ease government spending subsidy to the sector.

However, generation capacity and level of energy consumed by end-users remained dismal, standing between 4,000megawatts and 2,000MW post and pre-introduction of tariff, as electricity consumers, industry stakeholders as well as civil society organisations, yesterday, insisted that the quality of service in the sector may be going from bad to worst.

Indeed, Nigerians across communities are still forced to buy electricity poles, wires and transformers to enjoy supply, a situation that should be an aberration, if the service based tariff lived up to expectations.

While the industry regulator, Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) has failed to publish Sector performance since the SBT was introduced, especially the Aggregate Technical, Commercial and Collection (ATC&C) losses, the Minister of Power, Sale Mamman, had last month admitted and apologisesd over the failing power supply in the country, blaming the development on gas constraints.

Professor of Petroleum Economics and Policy Research, Wunmi Iledare, noted that DisCos may have succeeded in capturing the regulatory agency, noting that NERC appeared not to be acting in the right direction.

“I am not sure you can increase rate when services have not increased. I have not seen that anywhere in the world; where people pay ahead before capacity is expanded. I would not say services have improved, perhaps in major cities and not in smaller towns. The news I hear from Abuja is not encouraging either,” he said.

The professor equally noted that the captive areas of the DisCos were too big to ensure improved service delivery, stressing that the market should be divided into smaller manageable and accountable local distribution firms.

President of the Nigerian Association For Energy Economics (NAEE), Prof. Yinka Omorogbe, said the situation in the power sector remained shameful amidst tariff increase, adding that half of the country still lacks electricity outside the electricity grid.

“The increase in tariff does not correspond with service. Was the reason for the bad service because they don’t have money? Was it because people were not paying enough electricity? Is all going right with our transmission, generation and feedstock for electricity system? Those are basics we should be asking.

“When you look at the sector, it was the problem of if you pay us more, we will be able to guarantee you electricity. We should know that the electricity sector is in a mess. We should not talk as if we have electricity in this country because we don’t. Half of our people don’t have it. We generate shameful amount of electricity,” she said.

Former Managing Director at Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc., Rumundaka Wonodi noted that consumers do not feel improvement in service. Stating that the feeling in the market was subjective, Wonodi noted that an objective monitoring through metering at wholesale or feeder level would show when power is available.

“My take is that for the service based tariff to make sense, there must be accountability through wholesale meters that can show the number of hours power was consumed,” he said.

An energy expert, Ameh Madaki, who noted that there has been a modest improvement in the supply at his Abuja residence since the introduction of the cost reflective tariffs, stressed that the penchant for further increases creates the impression that the pretext of improved services is a booby trap designed to shortchange consumers and make electricity costs more expensive.

“The sector needs to engage in a soul searching exercise to strip itself of bogus costs, which tend to increase the cost of rendering the service, instead of passing such inefficient costs to the consumer with all the attendant multiplier effects on the economy,” he said.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’s Associate Director, Energy, Utilities, and Resources, Habeeb Jaiyeola said while many consumers may have experienced tariff increase, the same may not be said for improvement of service, stressing that mechanisms to monitor, which required initial consultation with consumers before tariff increase may need to be enforced.

Jaiyeola said the conditions set by NERC, which required negotiations with customers, full metering, and abolishing of estimated billing, prior to tariff increase remained challenging to implement, especially in areas where there is a mix of societal class.

“The service based tariff is intended to ensure government does not continue to subsidise power consumption by the rich, while ensuring the poor do not experience tariff increases.

“This may be challenging to actualise in mixed class settlements, and may adversely affect the poor in such situations. This may then be further complicated by the existence of uneven metering with the existence of prepaid and postpaid customers within the settlements,” Jaiyeola said.

The expert added that the conditions characterise the situation in most urban settlements, which makes it difficult for SBT’s intent to be achieved evenly across the country.

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a general interest Magazine with its headquarters in Abuja, the nation’s Capital.
Articles
Related posts
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Abuja FileCover StoryDevelopmentEconomyEntrepreneurshipNewsTelecommunication

NCC, Maida’s Leadership Take Centre Stage as Nigeria Celebrates GSM Revolution

4 Mins read
  By Abdulrahman Aliagan,  As Nigeria prepares to celebrate more than two decades of the GSM revolution, the Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC)…
Cover StoryDevelopmentEconomyEnergyEntrepreneurshipFeaturesOil and GasOpinionPerspectiveSecurity

The Missing Middle of Productive Use of Energy: Why Electricity Access Is Not the Same as Economic Power

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor The transformer is energised on a Tuesday morning. Engineers make a final check, close the switch, and the…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com