Power probe: Aren't we missing the point?

While a lot of useful information, which indeed can be relied upon to shape the sector’s future has been shared; it is disheartening that what is beginning to come through is yet another attempt at witch-hunting and demonising the Government officials and or, some trying to “pass the buck,” other than address the core issues.

Indeed this has now reduced the sector probe into a “UMEME probe” than a sector-wide inquiry which should have added value to the genuine search for sustainable energy crisis solutions.  
   

In order, therefore, for us to be able to appreciate the current state of the power sector; one needs to draw attention to the situation before the NRM government came to power. The electricity sector condition was characterised by a state of inadequacy. 
 

There was grave under-investment due to inadequate public funding; it was overstaffed with a majority unqualified; de-motivated and unreliable employees, who operated a heavily subsidised state owned monopoly. 
 

The state company (UEB) was itself a huge charge on the economy in meeting operational and maintenance costs for its dilapidated equipment. 
 

It was hardly productive with losses ranging from 35-40% just to mention but a few.  Before the NRM came to power, barely 5% of the then 20 million Ugandans had access to electricity. The entire country was generating less than 70 MW of electricity.

It is this background that shaped the thinking and eventual rationale that largely informed Government decisions to try and find a lasting solution.  
 

To permanently fix the above problems alongside numerous others not included in this narration, while at the same time keeping cognisant of the broader Government strategy of creating a self-sustaining private sector driven economy; Government decided to come up with a power strategy, which was approved in 1999.

The strategy had several objectives core among them, were the following:

Make the power sector financially viable and efficient.

Meet the growing demand for electricity and increasing grid coverage (area covered by electricity network infrastructure)

Improve the reliability and quality of electricity supply.

Attract private capital and entrepreneurs and 

Take advantage of export opportunities.
 

To realise the above objectives, the Government then initiated a couple of measures including the enactment of the Electricity Act, which was achieved in November 1999. The Act broadly established the sector regulator, Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA); it detailed generation, transmission, distribution sale and use of electricity; liberalisation and introduction of competition in the sector and successor companies among others.

The Public Enterprise Reform and Divestiture (PERD) Act Cap 98, which provides for the privatisation of state-owned companies was yet another relevant law that would be crucial in delivering the Government sector strategy’ stated objectives.  
 

It is, therefore, a deliberate distortion and diversion for any stakeholder to be made to believe that in undertaking its well-intentioned reform strategy in the sector; the Government had no legal framework and mandate to act.  

Furthermore, it would be futile for some important stakeholders that are appearing before the committee to “try to distance” themselves from these reforms in the power sector. 
 

The electricity act clearly stipulates the roles of the different parties in the reform implementation and, I believe, hitherto all parties have rightly played out their mandates as per relevant laws, policies and regulations facilitating the achievement of the sector objectives.

 

To properly contextualise the effect of the reforms undertaken by Government in the power sector, one should prudently appreciate that as soon as the reforms were embarked upon; there were several very crucial innefficiencies and negative societal tendencies that were brought to the fore. 
 

This is normal in a transformation of this nature. In the distribution sector for instance, when UMEME entered into the concession they discovered that:

losses were understated,

power thefts were rampant (worsened by the crisis since 2005),

 

Government agencies were reluctant and or, unable to pay for power,

 

incapacity to generate enough power to meet the growing demand of energy and in later years;

there was a prolonged drought that led to a drastic reduction in the hydrobased sources of electricity.
 

Faced with the above, the Government opted to make some crucial, but not so popular-decisions which were arguably the correct ones under the circumstances. One such decision was that the Government would pursue a supply driven approach to achieve the required capacity. 
 

A deliberate effort to fast track Bujagali and Karuma, which could have availed timely interventions was, however, thwarted as has been documented in the past. New efforts to alleviate the problem, had to feature a mix of approaches that included Government agreeing to better the terms in order to retain Umeme in the sector during a supply crisis alongside attracting other private sector players; a lot more focus was then put on mini-hydros; and indeed other rather more expensive solutions like thermal generation.
 

Broadly, for us to solve the multitude of challenges in the power sector, we need to  refocus our energies at the real issues in the sector which are, for example, attracting $ 400-500m in the distribution retail sector alone for the next four years if we are to effectively distribute the planned generation supply. 
 

It is not sustainable nor is it practical for Uganda, which is aiming at being a competitor in the wider East African Community to ready for the scramble at only 12% of the population connected to power and barely 65% of the distributed power reaching industrial consumers. 
 

As we, and indeed Parliament, undertake the probe, we need not rock the boat. It should be recalled from history that we once rocked the boat in the decision we made in the same sector, which led to majority of the consequences we are dealing with currently. 
 

In the heist to gain another ‘technocrat to hang at the city square’; we risk creating a political machinery that will make Uganda less competitive and less attractive to investors. 
 

Focus should be on how to better the current Umeme Concession and not to cancel it; it should be on identifying reliable and affordable sources on energy and not identifying the next victim for a kangaroo court. 
 

The above are the expectations of the ordinary Ugandan who desires reliable and affordable power just like investors who desire to make a long-term commitment to Uganda.