*..... A case for a transition period for newly upgraded communities*By: Dr. Philip B. Olusola,. Lead City University, Ibadan
The recent reclassification of some communities and feeders within the coverage area of the Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) to Band A has been received with mixed feelings.
For residents who have endured years of inadequate and unreliable electricity supply, the prospect of enjoying more stable power is certainly welcome. Indeed, nobody who desires development can reasonably oppose improved electricity supply.
But while we welcome better electricity, there is a legitimate question that deserves the attention of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), the Federal Ministry of Power and BEDC:
Should consumers immediately bear the full financial burden of a Band A tariff before the promised level of service has been demonstrated consistently and sustainably?
In our view, the answer should be no.
Band A is supposed to be service-based
The foundation of the Band A tariff structure is the principle of Service-Based Tariff (SBT).
According to NERC, the SBT system was introduced to ensure that electricity tariffs paid by consumers reflect the service delivered by Distribution Companies, particularly in terms of the number of hours of electricity supply per day. Under the framework, Band A requires a minimum of 20 hours of supply per day.
This principle is important.
It means that Band A should not merely be a label attached to a feeder or community. It represents a commitment to a particular level of service.
Consequently, if consumers are required to pay a higher tariff because they have supposedly been placed in a higher service category, it is only fair that the promised service should first be demonstrated and sustained.
BEDC’s own acknowledgement raises questions
This concern has become particularly relevant following recent public announcements by BEDC concerning service-level shortfalls.
In a public announcement dated September 3, 2026, and signed by BEDC Management on September 4, 2026, the company apologised for its failure to meet the minimum service level on listed Band A feeders, including feeders associated with the Ondo/Owo area, among other communities in Ondo State.
Similarly, another public announcement dated September 9, 2026, and signed by Management on September 10, 2026, acknowledged service-level shortfalls affecting listed Band A feeders, including Otun-Ekiti, among other communities in Ekiti State
These acknowledgements are significant because they bring the issue beyond mere complaints from electricity consumers. They demonstrate that service performance remains a real and measurable issue even after feeders have been classified as Band A.
Therefore, this is precisely where the question of fairness arises.
If a feeder is placed in Band A because it is expected to deliver at least 20 hours of electricity daily, but the electricity distributor subsequently acknowledges that the minimum service level has not been achieved, should the consumers continue to bear the full financial implications of the Band A classification without a corresponding adjustment or transition arrangement?
The Bolorunduro, Emure-Ile (Ondo State) and Otun-Ekiti (Ekiti State) experiences
The issue is particularly relevant to Bolorunduro, a large and relatively new settlement within Emure-Ile, near Owo, Ondo State.
Although Bolorunduro, (Emure-Ile), and Owo metropolis have distinct traditional leadership structures, the settlement forms part of the wider Emure-Ile/Owo area and shares the electricity-service concerns affecting the communities.
There is also the experience of Otun-Ekiti, the headquarters of Moba Local Government Area of Ekiti State.
These communities, like many others, as mentioned by BEDC in its statement of apology, desire reliable electricity. They are not asking for inferior service. They want the improved electricity supply promised under Band A.
However, consumers also want to know that the higher amount they are being asked to pay corresponds to a service that is real, measurable, consistent, and sustainable.
This is not an argument against higher tariffs
It is important to make this distinction.
The argument is not that consumers should never pay more for electricity.
On the contrary, Nigerians understand that better services cost more. Many consumers would willingly pay a reasonable premium for electricity that is genuinely available for most of the day and that enables households, businesses, schools, and other institutions to plan their activities.
The issue is value for money.
A family that is suddenly moved to a higher tariff will naturally expect a corresponding and dependable improvement in electricity supply.
A small business owner will expect to reduce dependence on generators.
A shop owner will expect fewer interruptions to business operations.
A household will expect to plan its daily activities around the availability of public electricity.
If those benefits do not materialise consistently, then the justification for the higher tariff becomes difficult for the ordinary consumer to understand.
NERC already recognises the principle of adjustment
Interestingly, the regulatory framework itself provides an important basis for addressing this concern.
NERC states that where a Distribution Company fails to deliver the minimum hours of supply associated with a service band, the DisCo’s performance is evaluated over a 60-day period, after which, upon verification, the applicable rate payable by customers in that cluster can be adjusted to reflect the quality of service actually delivered.
This is a very important principle.
It means that the quality of service is not supposed to be irrelevant once a feeder is classified as Band A.
The question, therefore, is why should a newly reclassified community not be given a reasonable period during which the promised service can be demonstrated before consumers are subjected to the full financial impact?
A six-month or one-year transition period
This is where government intervention becomes necessary.
We propose that whenever a community or feeder is newly upgraded to Band A, there should be a six-month to one-year transition period before the full tariff burden is imposed.
During that period, BEDC should be required to demonstrate consistently that the feeder is capable of delivering the required minimum service level.
The performance should be monitored transparently, and consumers should have access to the relevant information.
At the end of the transition period, if the promised level of service has been consistently delivered, the full Band A tariff can take effect with greater public acceptance.
If the service has not been delivered, however, the community should not be expected to pay the full premium merely because it has been classified as Band A.
Why this approach makes sense
Such a policy would benefit both consumers and BEDC.
For consumers, it would provide protection against paying a premium for a service that has not yet been adequately demonstrated.
For BEDC, it would provide a reasonable opportunity to stabilise the relevant feeders and demonstrate that the improved service is sustainable.
For NERC, it would strengthen confidence in the Service-Based Tariff system.
Furthermore, for the government, it would demonstrate that electricity reform is not simply about increasing tariffs but about ensuring measurable improvements in service delivery.
Government should not wait for public frustration
The recent BEDC shortfall announcements should, therefore, be seen as an opportunity for constructive intervention rather than confrontation.
The fact that BEDC has acknowledged service-level shortfalls should not necessarily be interpreted as a failure of the entire Band A policy. Electricity distribution involves technical, operational, and infrastructural challenges.
However, it does demonstrate why verification and transition are important.
Government should not wait until consumers become sufficiently frustrated to begin asking questions.
Rather, the regulatory system should anticipate these challenges and ensure that consumers are protected from paying substantially more where the corresponding service is not consistently delivered.
Our appeal to NERC and the Federal Government
We therefore appeal to NERC, the Federal Ministry of Power and BEDC, to consider a clear transition policy for communities and feeders newly classified as Band A.
Such a policy should include:
a six-month to one-year transition period;
transparent monitoring of actual daily supply hours;
regular publication of feeder performance;
prompt adjustment where the minimum service level is not achieved;
effective communication with affected communities; and
appropriate compensation or tariff adjustment where regulatory conditions require it.
NERC already maintains current regulatory and tariff documentation for BEDC, including its 2026 MYTO materials. The Commission also provides consumers with mechanisms for determining applicable tariffs and reporting service issues.
What is needed now is to make the system work in a way that ordinary consumers can clearly understand and trust.
Let the service come before the full tariff
The people of Bolorunduro/Emure-Ile, Ondo State, Otun-Ekiti, Ekiti State, among other affected communities, are not asking for special treatment.
They are asking for fair treatment.
They welcome improved electricity.
They are prepared to pay for improved electricity.
But they reasonably expect the improved service to be demonstrated, sustained, and measurable before they are required to bear the full financial burden attached to it.
The principle should, therefore, be simple:
Let the service come first. Let it be sustained. Let the consumers experience it. Then, let the full tariff follow.
If Band A is truly service-based, then the quality of service must remain at the heart of the arrangement.
Better electricity is welcome. Better value is expected. Better accountability is essential.
If the government genuinely wants Nigerians to have confidence in the electricity reforms, then consumers should never be made to feel that the higher bill arrived before the better service did.
— Philip B. Olusola, PhD Public Affairs Analyst and Academic
