Connect with us
Maduka University Advert

Business

Mainpower petitions EERC, rejects tariff reduction

Published

on

Spread the love
The Mainpower Electricity Distribution Company, has filed a formal petition before the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission (EERC), demanding immediate suspension of its new tariff order pending the hearing/determination of its petition.

The Spokesman of Mainpower, Mr Emeka Ezeh, in a statement on Wednesday in Enugu, said that the petition, dated August 14, 2025, was a fallout of the new tariff reduction order by the EERC.

Ezeh said that the new tariff reduction order by the EERC took effect from August 1, 2025.

It would be recalled that the EERC had in the said order, reduced tariff for Band A customers from N209/kwh to N160.40/kwh, while freezing Bands B-C.

The latest development was roundly condemned by both the National Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), the Generation Companies (Gencos), other Distribution Companies (Discos) as well as the Federal Ministry of Power.

The spokesman said that all the stakeholders had described the tariff reduction order as unsustainable, urging the EERC to put a halt to it, but the Commission “doubled down”.

“Mainpower has now approached the Commission formally, seeking an immediate suspension of the order pending the hearing and determination of its petition.

Maduka College Advert

“The petition, supported with a four-paragraph affidavit, was signed by Dr. Ernest Mupwaya, Managing Director/CEO, Mainpower Electricity Distribution Limited.

“It is expressly asking for ‘a review of order No. EERC/2025/003: Tariff Order for Mainpower Electricity Distribution Limited 2025’, to avoid loss of revenue due to downward review of tariff.”

He said that the EERC is the sole-respondent to the petition, which was brought pursuant To Section 36 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).

“Also in pursuant of Sections 11,12, 13, 20, 21, 33, 34 and 35 of the Enugu State Electricity Regulatory Commission Regulation (Regulation No. EERC-R-001, Business Rules).

“Regulation, 2024, Section 4.1.(C) & Schedule 1 of Regulation No. EERC/R004: Enugu State Regulatory Commission: Methodology for Tariff Regulation, 2024 and Under the inherent jurisdiction of the Commission.

“Mainpower stated in the petition that the tariff order published by the Respondent on Friday, July 18, 2025, for the Disco was not agreed by the parties

“The same did not comply with the Regulation No. EERC/R004: Enugu State Regulatory Commission: Methodology for Tariff Regulation, 2024 (Methodology for Tariff),” he said.

According to him, the petitioner averred that Section 4.1(c) provides that: “In order to avoid ‘Gold-Plating’ in the tariff using rate of return regulation, the licensee shall be required to review cost with the Commission.

He said, “It is the cost agreed with the Commission that shall be allowed for the operator to use in the tariff model for the determination of price that shall apply in contracts.

“This is because the value chain of electricity business in Enugu State shall be subject to contracts and prices shall be determined based on the applicable methodology published by the Commission in its website. (d) The review process for the cost shall be as prescribed in the Schedules to these Regulations”.

“It went further to state that ‘The Methodology for Tariff further provided in Schedule 1 thereof that: “Where the Commission does not reach an agreement on cost with the applicant within the twenty-one (21) days, the Commission shall subject the process to a formal hearing as stipulated in the Commission’s Business Rules.

“The Petitioner stated that after submission of the required data by the Petitioner, the Respondent invited the Petitioner to a 3-day engagement meeting to agree on the various parameters for the tariff via its letter with Ref. No. EERC/CO/2025/0086 dated 30th June, 2025 for engagements on 2nd to 4th July, 2025.”

The spokesman said that the petitioner (mainpower) disclosed that it never came to an agreement with the Respondent on certain key parameters with huge sensitivity effect.

“The Petitioner further revealed that during the engagement meetings from 2nd to 4th July, 2025, and at the end of the engagement meeting on the 4th July, 2025, the understanding with Respondent was that the process as enunciated in the Methodology of Tariff would be followed.

“And that both parties would reach an agreement on the said parameters mentioned above or hold a formal hearing as provided in Schedule 1 of the Methodology of Tariff.

“The Petitioner was surprised that the Respondent without agreement on these important and tariff-sensitive parameters proceeded to conclude the tariffs and publish the Tariff Order on Friday, 18th July, 2025.

“The Petitioner states that despite the incident mentioned in paragraph 9 above, it further engaged the Respondent and parties agreed to have a meeting on 25th July, 2025 to address the concerns of the Petitioner especially as this will threaten the Vesting Contract arrangement between the Petitioner’s Holding Company, Enugu Electricity Distribution Plc (EEDC) and Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Plc. (NBET) from where Petitioner receives its supply of electricity.

 

“After the presentations by the Petitioner on that 25th July, 2025, the Respondent reverted via a letter with Ref. No. EERC/CO/2025/0105 dated 30th July, 2025 but received via email on Thursday, July 31, 2025 at 3p.m. maintaining the implementation of the Tariff Order on 1st August, 2025. We shall found on the copy of the email sent by the Commission and the Presentation to the Commission made on 25th July, 2025,” he said.

While urging that the tariff order be reserved, the petitioner (Mainpower) stated that if implemented, it would cause irreversible adverse business impact on it.

Ezeh outlined some of the impacts to Mainpower, which included: “Financial Impact (Aug – Dec 2025): The tariff creates an average monthly revenue shortfall of between N1.3 billion and N1.5 billion, resulting in a cumulative gap of about N6.98 billion over five months.

He said that compliance with NBET and Market Operator (MO) settlement obligations is expected to drop significantly, from current levels of about 97 per cent to an estimated 81 per cent by the end of 2025. The outcome is a business sustainability risk.

“Disconnection of Supply to MainPower: The electricity supplied to the Enugu State Electricity Market flows from the Vesting Contract entered into between EEDC and NBET which tariff as approved by NERC is N209/kwh for Band A whilst the Bands B to C is N67/kwh.

“If Mainpower is not able to meet up with its remittances obligation which in turn affects that of EEDC, this will inevitably lead to the Disconnection of the Supply to Mainpower.

“Investment Impact: MainPower’s planned capital expenditure programme, valued at N33.2 billion and covering network expansion, feeder automation, and the installation of 350,000 smart meters, is at risk under the new tariff.

“If metering rollout is halted, over 42% of customers will remain unmetered beyond Q1 2026, perpetuating inefficiencies and revenue leakages.

“Operational Impact: Reduced funding will limit the company’s ability to maintain and repair critical infrastructure, increasing the likelihood of outages and customer complaints. Additionally, dissatisfaction with service levels is expected to drive more customers toward self-generation, further eroding revenue.

“Strategic and Reputational Impact: The undervaluation of MainPower’s asset base weakens the company’s balance sheet and reduces investor confidence, directly impacting its ability to attract capital for future projects.

 

“There is also a heightened risk of industrial action if the company struggles to meet payroll and vendor obligations, potentially damaging its reputation and operational stability

Ezeh said that Mainpower prayed for an order of the Commission suspending the application of the Tariff Order pending the determination of its case, as well as an order of the Commission for a review to approve either Scenario 1 of N206.80/Kwh or Scenario 2 of N194.54/Kwh as contained in its petition.

Business

Amukpe-Escravos pipeline and the real cost of ignoring current value, By Sufuyan Ojeifo

Published

on

Spread the love

Nigeria’s oil infrastructure has a habit of telling uncomfortable truths. Not just about barrels and flow rates, but about how a country chooses to value what it cannot afford to lose, and what it risks when it gets that calculation wrong.

Take the Amukpe-Escravos Pipeline, for example. A syndicate of lenders, led by Sterling Bank, is pushing back against efforts to revive a collapsed transaction involving a 40% stake in the asset. Their argument is not complicated. It is rooted in numbers and contractual discipline.

To be clear, a deal that fell apart in 2024 is being reconsidered using a valuation from that same year. However, since then, the asset has proved its worth. Independent assessments now place that stake closer to $600 million. The earlier benchmark sits far below that. The gap is not cosmetic. It is material. And if left unaddressed, it becomes a cost.

The original $243 million offer did not collapse by accident. It was terminated in October 2024 after Conpurex Limited failed to meet payment obligations, breached key terms, and sought to shift risk back to the seller. By the time the Technical Committee closed the process, confidence had already drained out of it. That much is settled.

Ordinarily, that should have been the end. Instead, there are moves to return to a September 2025 approval linked to that same process. The lenders describe this as an administrative carryover. Their response is simple. Start again. Set aside the old approval. Bring in an independent adviser. Return the asset to the market and let current value speak.

What is striking is not just the position itself, but how unusual it sounds in the Nigerian context. In a system where strategic assets have too often travelled through corridors of convenience, an insistence on valuation and process can sound almost rebellious. It should not be so.

Maduka College Advert

Because this is not entirely about one pipeline. It is about whether a terminated deal remains terminated. Whether contracts still mean what they say. Whether performance counts for anything once the paperwork has been filed away. And, crucially, who bears the cost when value is ignored.

The numbers, as always, are blunt. A 2025 independent valuation, referenced in the March 2026 edition of Africa Oil+Gas Report, places the 40% stake at a mid-case of $372 million, a high case of $544 million, and an upside of $641 million. These are not speculative figures. They reflect an asset that has quietly done its job in a difficult environment.

With a capacity of 160,000 barrels per day and uptime consistently above 95%, the Amukpe-Escravos Pipeline has become one of the more reliable evacuation routes in a system where reliability is often in short supply. While other corridors struggle with theft and disruption, this one works.

That fact matters a great deal. Because when an asset proves itself under pressure, its value does not stand still. It moves. To price it as though nothing has changed is not just a technical choice. It is a financial one. And every financial choice has consequences.

It says performance can be ignored. It says time does not count. It says administrative continuity can outrun economic reality. To be fair, the earlier process gave enough warning signs. Lenders questioned the assumptions. Coordination was weak. When Continental Oil and Gas stepped back, Conpurex entered without a clean transition and soon began to reopen settled terms, shifting obligations and introducing new conditions that unsettled the commercial balance. The eventual termination was not dramatic. It was inevitable.

What unsettles stakeholders now is the possibility that a process that ran its course may still shape the outcome. If a concluded transaction can reappear without a clear restart, the line between closure and continuity begins to blur. Once that line blurs, contractual uncertainty follows. And when certainty weakens, serious capital takes notice.

This is where the issue widens beyond the pipeline itself. Back in March, Africa Oil+Gas Report described the Amukpe-Escravos matter as no longer just a transaction story, but a test of how Nigeria governs, values, and safeguards strategic oil infrastructure. That reading feels even more relevant now.

Because what is at stake is not simply who acquires a stake in a pipeline. It is how the country signals to those willing to invest in its most critical assets. It is about whether value is recognised only in theory, or protected in practice. It is about whether losses are acknowledged, or quietly absorbed.

The lenders’ position is often described as resistance. It is better understood as discipline. Reset the process. Revisit the approval. Bring in independent oversight. Return the asset to the market through a transparent and competitive process that reflects present realities. Ensure capable counterparties. Align all stakeholders.

These are not extravagant demands. They are the basics. Nigeria has seen too many assets drift from promise to regret. Too many structures that once worked reduced to cautionary tales. When something works, when something proves resilient in a difficult system, the least that can be done is to treat it with the seriousness it has earned.

Moments like this do not announce themselves as turning points. They arrive quietly, dressed as routine decisions.

But they reveal everything. For an economy seeking disciplined capital and trying to rebuild confidence, the signal matters. Let the process be reset. Let valuation reflect reality. Let the outcome show that when Nigeria recognises value, it also knows how to protect it, and what it stands to lose when it does not.

Until then, the lenders’ position stands as a reminder that in a system where too much has been taken for granted, some lines are too important to be crossed and must be held.

● Sufuyan Ojeifo publishes THE CONCLAVE online newspaper.

Continue Reading

Business

Nova Bank Appoints Jude Anele as Managing Director/CEO

Published

on

Jude Anele, Managing Director/CEO, NOVA Bank Ltd
Spread the love

Meets CBN Capital Requirements, to Open Eight New Branches in 2026.

NOVA Bank Limited has announced the appointment of Jude Anele as its Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, following the approval of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

The appointment comes at a pivotal moment in the Bank’s evolution, following its transition from merchant banking to commercial banking and the successful completion of its recapitalisation programme ahead of the March 31, 2026, regulatory deadline.

Anele brings more than 33 years of banking experience across West and Central Africa, with deep expertise in retail /commercial banking, corporate banking, risk management, institutional transformation and executive leadership. Over the course of his career, he has led complex banking operations, strengthened governance frameworks, delivered sustainable revenue growth and built high-performance teams.

The appointment reflects the Board’s strategic commitment to consolidating NOVA Bank’s commercial banking platform while accelerating growth across its Corporate, Commercial and Retail segments, as well as priority markets.

Speaking on his appointment, Anele said he was honoured to assume leadership of the Bank at a defining stage of its growth.

“Nova Bank has built a strong institutional foundation defined by regulatory compliance, capital strength, disciplined governance and a clear commercial mandate. Our focus now is execution deepening customer relationships, expanding responsibly across priority markets, strengthening risk discipline and delivering sustainable value to our shareholders, he said.

Maduka College Advert

The Bank’s Chairman, Phillips Oduoza, also expressed confidence in the new leadership.

“The Board is pleased to welcome Mr. Jude Anele as Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer. His depth of experience, strategic clarity and proven leadership record align strongly with NOVA Bank’s growth ambitions,” Oduoza said.  He added that with recapitalization completed ahead of the regulatory timeline, the Bank is entering a new phase defined by scale, stability and structured expansion.

NOVA Bank also confirmed that it has met the recapitalization requirements set by the Central Bank of Nigeria ahead of the regulatory deadline, reinforcing its capital adequacy and long-term financial stability. The capital raise, supported by new and existing shareholders, further strengthens the Bank’s balance sheet and positions it for disciplined growth.

In 2025, Global Credit Rating reaffirmed NOVA Commercial Bank’s national scale long- and short-term issuer ratings of BBB(NG) and A3(NG) respectively, while Agusto & Co. reaffirmed the Bank’s “Bbb” rating with a stable outlook, reflecting its strong capital base, sound liquidity position and resilient asset quality relative to its risk profile.

NOVA Bank currently maintains operations in Lagos, Abuja, Owerri and Port Harcourt, with plans to open eight additional branches across key commercial hubs in 2026 as part of its expansion strategy.

The commissioning of the Bank’s regional office in Owerri marked a significant milestone in its South-East and South-South growth strategy. The event attracted government officials’business leaders and Nigerians in diaspora and underscored NOVA Bank’s commitment to supporting enterprise development and economic growth.

NOVA Bank Limited is a commercial bank licensed and regulated by the Central Bank of Nigeria. Commencing operations in 2018 as a merchant bank, the institution transitioned to a commercial bank in 2024 and provides retail, SME, corporate and commercial banking services through its Phygital modelan integrated approach combining physical branch presence with digital banking infrastructure.

Continue Reading

Business

Dangote reduces fuel price by N100 as global crude slumps

Published

on

Spread the love

The Dangote Refinery on Tuesday reduced its petrol gantry price by N100, from N1,175 to N1,075 per litre.

The move followed a slump in global oil prices, with Brent crude dropping to $89 per barrel from over $100 on Monday.

Officials of the refinery confirmed the development to newsmen, adding that diesel prices have also been reduced.

They stated that petrol supplied via coastal distribution channels will now sell for N1,050 per litre, reflecting a slight differential for marine logistics.

Similarly, diesel is now N1,430 per litre at the gantry, representing a N190 reduction from the earlier price of N1,620 per litre.

According to oilprice.com, Brent crude prices witnessed a dramatic reversal on Tuesday, plunging nearly 27 per cent from the previous day’s high of $119 per barrel to as low as $87 per barrel.

Maduka College Advert

The Dangote Refinery reportedly blamed global crude volatility for the repeated price hikes, citing tensions arising from the US-Iran conflict.

Continue Reading

Trending

Maduka College Advert