First half of the article

THE departure of Adebayo Adelabu as Minister of Power presents an opportunity for structural reset in a sector long managed through incremental adjustment rather than deliberate redesign. The word “Penkelemesi”—“peculiar mess”—popularized by Adelabu’s grandfather—aptly describes Nigeria’s power sector. From recurring grid collapses to chronic underperformance, it remains a study in systemic dysfunction.

From recommendation to reality

When Adebayo Adelabu assumed office on August 16, 2023, I urged him to confront this“Penkelemesi” with structural clarity. Over two and a half years on, it is appropriate to assess progress. First, the Siemens Electrification Roadmap. I recommended a review of the Siemens-backed electrification roadmap launched in 2018 to scale supply toward 25,000 MW by 2025, alongside the public communication of a revised delivery timeline. The project remains central to grid expansion. Progress, however, remains incremental. The gap is not activity but execution discipline. Without a clear timeline, it risks remaining aspirational. Second, transmission and grid resilience. I emphasized that transmission must function as a strategic backbone. There has been increased attention through donor-supported upgrades and policy initiatives such as the Grid Asset Management Company (GAMCO). However, GAMCO risks duplicating the roles of the Transmission Company of Nigeria and the Nigerian Independent System Operator. The grid remains fragile, prone to system-wide disturbances, and a single point of failure. Recurring grid collapses—running into double digits under Adelabu—confirm systemic instability. Structural reform of transmission has yet to begin.

Third, energy–industrial integration. I advised aligning electricity policy with a broader energy–industrial framework. However, integration between electricity planning and industrial strategy remains weak. Power supply is still treated as a sectoral issue, not a driver of industrial growth. A disconnect persists between generation, transmission, and consumption. Industrial users are exiting the grid—diverting capital from production into electricity self-generation. This exit deepens the sector’s liquidity crisis by removing its most creditworthy customers. Fourth, incentives and enforcement. I argued for measurable incentives alongside enforceable penalties across the value chain.The national metering rate rose from 46.57 percent in December 2024 to 57.27 percent by December 2025. The sector continues to operate within a fragile liquidity framework, characterized by payment shortfalls, weak enforcement, and government bailouts. These are most visible in estimated billing, low consumer trust, and weak revenue collection. A market that cannot measure consumption cannot enforce discipline.

Fifth, federal–state collaboration under the Electricity Act 2023.I called for leveraging the Electricity Act to drive coordinated federal–state collaboration. The amendment to the Act represents progress in decentralizing electricity governance. However, progress remains emergent. The absence of a national integration framework risks fragmentation and power islanding. The true potential of the Act lies in federal–state and state–state collaborations to achieve economies of scale. Decentralization without integration risks replacing one fragile grid with many isolated—and costly—systems.

Sixth, energy mix and the energy trilemma.I recommended that all energy sources be strateg

infrastructure vulnerabilities, and mounting debts. While gas remains a transition fuel, diversification remains insufficient for load management, grid resilience, and long-term energy security. Reliance on a single dominant fuel source—no matter the size of its reserves—is not a strategy but a vulnerability.

Seventh, gas-to-power coordination. I proposed systemic coordination between the power and gas sectors. Recent efforts include the Gas-to-Power Monitoring Committee inaugurated on April 9, 2026. However, as argued in this column, such committees often compensate for institutional fragmentation rather than resolve it. Coordination remains reactive,with no single point of accountability. The recurrence of committees reflects unresolved system design. Eighth, global benchmarking and cost realism. I advised comparative analysis of residential, commercial and industrial electricity tariffs across advanced and emerging economies to extract lessons. Tariff reforms have moved toward cost-reflective pricing. Yet structured benchmarking has not been institutionalized as a transparent tool for guiding long-term pricing and investment decisions. These were not isolated recommendations, but interdependent elements of a single system design—each reinforcing the other, and none sufficient on its…

Continue reading the complete column on the publisher’s website.

Read full article on Nigerian Tribune