PHCN Reform – Investors want to Rip us off Again!

Power Sector Reform – From Bad to Worse!

Following the receipt of their certificates of ownership of the unbundled PHCN companies, the new owners of  Discos and Gencos in Nigeria are already asking for increases in tariffs for electricity yet to be generated or delivered to poor Nigerians. This no doubt betrays their ignorance at least in the whole subject of electricity supply business. I first expressed my concern as to the realisation of electricity in Nigeria when I saw the calibre of companies who have won the bids for the unbundled PHCN utilities. My main concern was that most of the winners have no idea of how electric current flows. Unlike many businesses that could be managed by entrepreneurs from Economics and Finance backgrounds, experience reveals that the business of electricity generation, distribution and supply requires more than econometrics. More is involved in the way of understanding how current flows!

The new owners of the recently privatised PHCN companies have demanded an upward review of the provisions of the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) which means they want an increase in price of electricity they are yet to deliver to our homes. Ofcourse this is not the first time poor Nigerian consumers have had to pay electricity bills for electricity they have not consumed. Nigerians have always paid for the corruption of a few cartel and the ineptitude of those who pretend to offer invaluable services to us. Much like in the days of NEPA and PHCN, where there was no change except for name and acronyms, it seems the “Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry” in Nigeria is heading for a world acclaimed disgrace. Why do I so say?

The Discos and Gencos are claiming that the stipulated tariffs in the draft of interim rules and regulations spelt out by NERC prior to their take-over of plants and or networks, were inadequate to guarantee a healthy return on investment. One expects that any serious investor in an industry that is capital intensive such as this would carry out appropriate due diligence and feasibility before agreeing to pay down for the Assets. Claiming that the price is inadequate and wanting an increase in tariff immediately after receiving certificates of ownership is both dubious and incredible. This in itself is an indication of lack of interest in the business. Perhaps they thought it would be “business as usual”. Nigeria is moving from one cartel to another. These investors may yet form another cartel that Nigeria will have to contend with much like the “cartel” that delayed the implementation of the reform in the first place or the “cartel” that imports Generators, or all the other “cartels” that Nigerians have had to contend with.

The solution is a fully independent Regulator whose chief role is to protect the interest of consumers and ensure that investors do not reap us off! The Regulator, NERC, however has promised there will be no increases in price for now saying that to increase the tariffs at this early stage is suicidal bearing in mind the expectations of consumers and other industry stake holders. What the new owners should concentrate on for now is how to ensure stable electricity supply within the next few years and Nigerians will be more than happy to pay more for electricity consumed. Unfortunately, NERC has been forced to cower to pressures from the powers that be in the past but it must be noted that such inconsistencies in policies and inability to put their foot down on matters of this scale of importance, will spell doom for the Nigerian Electricity Supply industry as serious Investors will hold back from participating in a highly volatile environment. Going forward, NERC must strike a balance between the investment required by new owners to upgrade the dilapidated electricity network they have inherited with the yearnings and aspiration of Nigerian consumers. In doing this, NERC must be fair to Investors who have borrowed money to finance their businesses. A cost-reflective tariff must be put in place to enable investors recoup their investment over the long term. One way to obtain value for money is for NERC to link revenue with delivered outputs by using the “output measure” technique used in other privatised electricity systems. This will make sure that the investors do not reap off the consumers and or “sweat” the assets to gain short-term profit and abandon the network worse than they have met it.

Some have argued blindly that since Nigerians pay more in the way of buying Diesel and Petrol for Generators, they are sure to be able to pay increased tariff. This has nothing to do with the revenue from an investor except if the investor wishes to simply move the money around the Nigerian economy from the buying of petroleum products to the payment of premium for developing the electric power network. This will be a good juxtaposition if the new investors are the same “cartel” selling Petroleum products!

Advertisements

PHCN Reform – Investors want to Rip us off Again!

Power Sector Reform – From Bad to Worse!

Following the receipt of their certificates of ownership of the unbundled PHCN companies, the new owners of  Discos and Gencos in Nigeria are already asking for increases in tariffs for electricity yet to be generated or delivered to poor Nigerians. This no doubt betrays their ignorance at least in the whole subject of electricity supply business. I first expressed my concern as to the realisation of electricity in Nigeria when I saw the calibre of companies who have won the bids for the unbundled PHCN utilities. My main concern was that most of the winners have no idea of how electric current flows. Unlike many businesses that could be managed by entrepreneurs from Economics and Finance backgrounds, experience reveals that the business of electricity generation, distribution and supply requires more than econometrics. More is involved in the way of understanding how current flows!

The new owners of the recently privatised PHCN companies have demanded an upward review of the provisions of the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) which means they want an increase in price of electricity they are yet to deliver to our homes. Ofcourse this is not the first time poor Nigerian consumers have had to pay electricity bills for electricity they have not consumed. Nigerians have always paid for the corruption of a few cartel and the ineptitude of those who pretend to offer invaluable services to us. Much like in the days of NEPA and PHCN, where there was no change except for name and acronyms, it seems the “Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry” in Nigeria is heading for a world acclaimed disgrace. Why do I so say?

The Discos and Gencos are claiming that the stipulated tariffs in the draft of interim rules and regulations spelt out by NERC prior to their take-over of plants and or networks, were inadequate to guarantee a healthy return on investment. One expects that any serious investor in an industry that is capital intensive such as this would carry out appropriate due diligence and feasibility before agreeing to pay down for the Assets. Claiming that the price is inadequate and wanting an increase in tariff immediately after receiving certificates of ownership is both dubious and incredible. This in itself is an indication of lack of interest in the business. Perhaps they thought it would be “business as usual”. Nigeria is moving from one cartel to another. These investors may yet form another cartel that Nigeria will have to contend with much like the “cartel” that delayed the implementation of the reform in the first place or the “cartel” that imports Generators, or all the other “cartels” that Nigerians have had to contend with.

The solution is a fully independent Regulator whose chief role is to protect the interest of consumers and ensure that investors do not reap us off! The Regulator, NERC, however has promised there will be no increases in price for now saying that to increase the tariffs at this early stage is suicidal bearing in mind the expectations of consumers and other industry stake holders. What the new owners should concentrate on for now is how to ensure stable electricity supply within the next few years and Nigerians will be more than happy to pay more for electricity consumed. Unfortunately, NERC has been forced to cower to pressures from the powers that be in the past but it must be noted that such inconsistencies in policies and inability to put their foot down on matters of this scale of importance, will spell doom for the Nigerian Electricity Supply industry as serious Investors will hold back from participating in a highly volatile environment. Going forward, NERC must strike a balance between the investment required by new owners to upgrade the dilapidated electricity network they have inherited with the yearnings and aspiration of Nigerian consumers. In doing this, NERC must be fair to Investors who have borrowed money to finance their businesses. A cost-reflective tariff must be put in place to enable investors recoup their investment over the long term. One way to obtain value for money is for NERC to link revenue with delivered outputs by using the “output measure” technique used in other privatised electricity systems. This will make sure that the investors do not reap off the consumers and or “sweat” the assets to gain short-term profit and abandon the network worse than they have met it.

Some have argued blindly that since Nigerians pay more in the way of buying Diesel and Petrol for Generators, they are sure to be able to pay increased tariff. This has nothing to do with the revenue from an investor except if the investor wishes to simply move the money around the Nigerian economy from the buying of petroleum products to the payment of premium for developing the electric power network. This will be a good juxtaposition if the new investors are the same “cartel” selling Petroleum products!

What is an Electricity Market?

An electricity Market – What is it?

The Nigerian Power Sector Reform reached another milestone with the “handover” of certificates of ownership to new owners of the privatised Power Infrastructure. The next crucial stage is the declaration of the electricity market that characterises a privatised electricity supply industry. In a sense, Nigeria is in an advantageous position when it comes to Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry because it can learn from the mistakes and gains from advanced economies that pioneered the restructuring of electricity supply industries for over twenty years now.

So what is an electricity Market?

Simply put, it is an arrangement to effect the sales, purchases and short-term trades of electricity. In this market, electricity, like every commodity, can be bought, sold and traded. Wholesale transactions in an electricity market are typically cleared and settled by a designated market operator or by an independent special-purpose entity charged exclusively with that function. The commodities within an electricity market generally consists of two types – namely, Power and Energy. Power in this case is the metered rate of transfer of electrical energy measured in Megawatts (MW) and Energy is the quantum of electricity that flows through a metered point for a given period and it is measured in Megawatts-hour (MWh). Contrary to common perception, a buyer of electricity is not purchasing Megawatt-hours of energy produced by a specific generation unit but the right to withdraw that quantity of MWhs from a specific location in the network and a seller is paid for injecting a certain quantity of MWhs into the grid at a specified location in the network. Thus, an electricity market is open to anyone including Generators, Power Marketers who buy and re-sell electricity, Independent Power Producers, providers of ancillary services such as Short-Term Operating Reserves (STOR), if they have secured appropriate licences to participate in the market.

What makes an electricity market different from other markets?

The electricity market shares several features with the Financial and Securities market. Participants buy and sell rights to inject and withdraw electricity from the Transmission Network, much as investors in securities buy and sell ownership shares of firms. The difference is in the physics of producing electricity. Virtually all electricity produced must be delivered to final consumers through the Transmission Network, and so the action(s) of other market participants directly impact the ability of a market participant to sell or consume electricity. One problem that comes to mind straight away is the status and reliability of the Transmission Network. Interestingly, although all market participants share a common interest in the reliable operation of the Transmission Network, they may often find it unilaterally beneficial to engage in anti-trust and anti-competition behaviours that degrade the overall reliability of the Transmission Network just to get financial advantage and create wealth for themselves. This will be particularly more destructive in an environment where corruption holds way. A popular trend is one supplier withholding capacity from the day-ahead market in order to increase the price it receives for the energy it sells. This can create a reliability problem for all other suppliers because the system operator will be unable to dispatch the necessary generation units to the levels needed to meet with real time demand without increasing the risk of system collapse.

Whereas antitrust and anti-competition laws are enough for securities and stock market, the required monitoring process for an electricity market is more involving. This is all the more so because, electricity market failures are more likely and substantially more harmful to consumers than other market failures because of how electricity is produced and delivered and the crucial role it plays in a modern economy. Hence, a prospective market monitoring process backed by the prevailing regulatory authority must be put in place at the start of the market.

Another similarity between electricity market and the securities market is that the smooth running of the market requires both parties to each transaction to comply with all contractual obligations with maximum liquidity existing within the spot market. Further to this however, a necessary condition for an efficient wholesale electricity market is that participants produce or consume electricity under the terms and conditions specified in their bids into the market. Failure to comply with contractual obligations not only increases the cost to the violating firm on future transactions, it can also reduce the reliability of the Transmission Network and therefore the cost of other suppliers and load-serving entities transacting. It is instructive to mention that an effective electricity market will require sufficient liquidity to ensure that unexpectedly large transactions can take place at virtually any instant in time without causing substantial price movements. Otherwise, prices will be extremely sensitive to small changes in amount of energy purchased or sold in the market. This can also lead to the illiquidity of the forward market wherein, if either side of the market is uncertain about the terms and conditions of delivery of a forward contract for electricity, it will increase the cost of participating in the forward market and thus reduce the liquidity of the forward market.

Whereas participants in financial markets have different choices as regards how to obtain the commodity traded, buyers and sellers of whole sale electricity have no choice as to how to take or provide delivery of the electricity they have purchased or sold. All electricity must be delivered through a single Transmission Network serving a given geographic area. If the network is poorly operated, this increases the cost of participating in the wholesale electricity market for all entities. The spot market is always an alternative option available to buyers and sellers so it is the relevant opportunity cost of participating in the forward market. Consequently, there is much greater need for market monitoring in electricity markets relative to financial markets because one supplier’s privately profitable behaviour can significantly degrade the ability of another supplier to inject the energy it has sold or more importantly for consumers at certain locations in the network to withdraw energy they have purchased. As mentioned earlier, electricity markets require demand to equal supply at every instant of time at every location in the transmission network. But electrons flow according to the laws of physics and not according to the terms of a financial contract to the extent that a privately-profitable behaviour of one market participant that degrades system reliability can immediately reduce the ability of other buyers and sellers to fulfil their contractual obligations. Furthermore, if one market participant decides to misbehave and make more profit by injecting significantly more or less energy into the network than the system operator expects, this can limit the ability of other suppliers and load-serving entities to inject and withdraw energy from the network. Such profit-maximising strategies by participants in an electricity market make it a market requiring tough and consistent monitoring processes.

Finally, electricity is also unique in the sense that the technology of producing and delivering electricity places significant constraints on how wholesale electricity market can operate. For this reason, it is important to have a synergy between the design of the market protocols with the design of the engineering protocols used to operate the system. In this regard, there is need for both engineering and economics expertise interacting seamlessly to achieve a successful and efficient market monitoring process.

The afore-mentioned reasons underscore why electricity markets must be monitored to ensure there is liquidity both in the spot and short-term forward markets. Best results are achieved if this market monitoring process is independent of the system operator, the market operator and all other market participants.

Who Invented Radio?

In Physics, Resonance is defined as the tendency of a system to oscillate with greater amplitude at some frequencies than others. Frequencies at which the response amplitude is a relative maximum are known as Resonant Frequencies. At these frequencies, even small periodic driving forces can produce large amplitude oscillations because the system stores energy.

With his newly created coils, Tesla soon discovered that he could transmit and receive powerful radio signals when they were tuned to resonate at the same frequency. When a coil is tuned to a particular frequency, it literally magnifies the incoming signal through resonant action. By early 1895, Nikola Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles to WestPoint, New York…. But in the same year, disaster struck. A building fire consumed Tesla’s lab, destroying his work. The timing could not have been worse. In England, a young Italian experimenter named Guglielmo Marconi had been working on building a device for wireless telegraphy. The young Marconi had taken out the first wireless telegraphy patent in England in 1896. His device had only a two-circuit system, which some said could not transmit “across a pond.” Later, Marconi set up long-distance demonstrations, using a Tesla Oscillator to transmit the signals across the English Channel.

Tesla filed his own basic Radio patent applications in1897. They were granted in 1900. Marconi’s first patent application in America, filed on November 10, 1900 was rejected. Marconi’s revised application for the following three years were repeatedly rejected because of the priority of Tesla and other Inventors ……………..

With Tesla already granted patent in America and Marconi rejected, who will be recognised worldwide for this all-important discovery?  Watch this space…………………..