BEDC ELECTRICITY: WHY ARE CUSTOMERS PAYING MORE FOR LESS?

 MAJORITY OJI raises questions about consumer protection, regulation, and transparency

Electricity consumers in the Benin Electricity Distribution Company (BEDC) area are increasingly frustrated by what they describe as BEDC-induced problems. They are complaining about issues such as high electricity rates, unreliable supply, unexpected deductions, and mismatches in prepaid-meter usage. These complaints are not new; residents in Delta, Edo, and surrounding areas have been raising concerns for years. Common grievances include erratic power supply, estimated billing, customer service shortcomings, malfunctioning meters, transformer breakdowns, rising tariffs, and a noticeable gap between what consumers pay and the electricity they actually receive.

 The rollout of prepaid meters was intended to enhance transparency, allowing customers to purchase electricity in advance and better manage their usage. However, many are now questioning whether this system has truly improved transparency or merely altered their experience with electricity costs. A pressing concern for consumers is understanding the actual cost per unit of electricity under BEDC’s current tariff system. They want to know if they are being charged correctly according to their designated tariff and service band. 

In Nigeria, electricity tariffs are supposed to be regulated and not arbitrary. Consumers are categorized into service bands that come with specific obligations. Therefore, accurate classification is crucial. If consumers are assigned to a particular band, they should expect a corresponding level of electricity supply. When the expected service levels are not met, it raises valid questions about the appropriateness of the tariff being applied. This issue is further compounded when customers feel that the units credited to their prepaid meters do not align with their payments.

Take the case from Old Otoro Road in Abraka, Delta State. A resident describes the electricity supply in their area as alternating between roughly one day on and one day off. Ideally, this should mean about fifteen days of electricity supply within a 30-day electricity supply period. However, residents report that the reality is quite different. On the designated supply days, power may not actually be available for the full expected duration. As a result, the total number of days and hours when electricity is accessible is often much lower than what consumers believe their service should be. For instance, in a compound with two flats sharing one prepaid meter, one tenant shares that the meter was credited with ₦30,000 on August 12. By September 4, that amount was reportedly exhausted. 

The above narrative raises critical questions: How much electricity did the ₦30,000 actually purchase? What tariff was applied? Were any deductions made? And how does this consumption compare with the actual supply received? Given that the payment appears to translate to around ₦277 per unit, with 109 kWh expected for ₦30,000, consumers have a right to seek clarity, especially when supply patterns show outages during designated supply times. A pressing issue is what happened to those units consumed. This inquiry lies at the center of the controversy. When a customer buys electricity on a prepaid meter, there should be a straightforward connection between the money spent, the tariff rates used, any deductions applied, the units accredited, and the electricity used. If this relationship cannot be made clear and understandable to consumers, then the prepaid system loses one of its key benefits: transparency. 

Therefore, consumers should receive a detailed breakdown that includes the amount paid, the tariff applicable, the total units purchased, any statutory charges or approved deductions, any outstanding debts deducted through the recharge, the remaining balance of units on the meter, the rate at which units are deducted, and the date and time the meter reaches zero. When this information is lacking, customers are left uncertain and suspicious. There are also concerns regarding the deductions for old debts or meter costs that were believed to have been provided for free, or for outstanding debts or obligations. Is this true? Or are consumers simply trying to make sense of where their purchased units are going?

This brings up a significant question: What is the legal and contractual basis for deductions made from a customer’s prepaid recharge? In the case narrated about the incident in Abraka, the landlord installed a prepaid meter before the free distribution of these meters took place. If a customer later buys electricity and a deduction occurs from that recharge, the customer deserves clarity on several points: What is being deducted? Who is responsible for the debt? When was this debt incurred? How much was due at that time? What calculation led to this amount? Were they notified about the deduction? Did they have a chance to contest this debt? What agreement allows BEDC to recover charges through prepaid electricity purchases? Most critically: Who established what the customer allegedly owes?

 It is clear that if a consumer is having a debt collected, there must be a verifiable record that supports this debt, along with a straightforward system for the consumer to challenge any incorrect charges. Customers should not simply accept unexplained deductions that appear automatically in a prepaid system. Regarding the situation in Abraka, we need to consider which electricity supply category the area falls under. This leads to another crucial issue concerning service classification. What electricity supply classification applies to the Otoro Road, Abraka community, with its one day on, one day off schedule? Are customers in this area correctly classified? Are they being billed according to the appropriate tariff for their classification? And, more broadly, are consumers throughout the BEDC franchise receiving the basic supply level that corresponds with the tariffs they are paying? 

Addressing the above questions requires more than just explanations from customer service representatives; they demand independent regulatory oversight and publicly available data. If a community is classified under a specific band that dictates pricing, there should be a clear method for verifying whether the actual supply received aligns with that classification.

Has there been a national trend regarding the troubling situation in the Old Otoro area of Abraka? The issues occurring on Old Otoro Road should not be viewed as isolated complaints. Similar concerns, such as tariff increases, prepaid-meter consumption defects, unexpected deductions, unreliable supply, band classifications, estimated billing, and problems with customer service, have been echoed by electricity consumers across various regions in Nigeria. The national conversation about electricity has evolved beyond simply questioning the lack of reliable supply, shifting to a more complex inquiry: What exactly are Nigerians paying for, and are they receiving adequate service in return? 

Again, this raises crucial concerns about consumer protection, regulation, and accountability. Ideally, the move to prepaid metering should lessen disputes since consumers pay before using electricity. However, when consumers cannot understand how their payments translate into service units, or why their energy is depleted faster than anticipated, new disputes arise. This situation begs the question: Where are the regulators? Nigeria has established institutions intended to regulate the electricity sector and protect consumers. The Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) plays a key role in overseeing electricity generation, transmission, and distribution, and in setting rules for consumers and distribution companies. Additionally, there are mechanisms for consumer protection within the regulatory framework, allowing customers to voice their complaints and seek redress. 

However, the critical issue is not merely the existence of these institutions but their accessibility to the average electricity consumer. How many customers are aware that they can contest a disputed bill? How many know how to challenge an incorrect classification of their electricity tariff? How many know what steps to take if prepaid units appear to have been wrongly deducted? How many understand where to report ongoing failures to meet service standards? And how many recognize the difference between filing a complaint with a distribution company and escalating it to the regulator? This situation calls for greater transparency. The complaints coming from Abraka, along with those from other communities served by BEDC, warrant investigation and should not be brushed aside as mere consumer discontent. 

Regulatory and consumer protection authorities need to look into several key areas: the electricity tariffs applicable in BEDC’s service regions, the service bands designated for affected communities, the actual electricity supply being provided, the connection between service bands and the tariffs charged, the methods used for calculating prepaid meter units, approved deductions from prepaid meter purchases, debt recovery mechanisms, the basis for any charges related to meters, complaints about rapidly depleting prepaid units, the accuracy of meter readings and recharge records, and the effectiveness of the current consumer complaint and redress processes. If there are legitimate billing or metering issues, customers affected should receive appropriate compensation. If the charges are fair and correctly calculated, both BEDC and the regulators need to explain them in terms that the average consumer can easily grasp. This is what transparency entails. For now, however, it seems that BEDC has control over the funds and is unjustly benefiting from them. This must come to an end immediately.

Oji is a Professor of Mass Communication, Delta State University, Abraka