Enugu State Electricity Commission Hits Back at NERC Over Regulatory Dispute

Enugu State’s electricity commission has sharply responded to recent criticisms from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), rejecting allegations of non-compliance and defending its operational autonomy. The standoff follows NERC’s demand that Enugu’s power utility revise its tariff models and submit to more stringent oversight—an intervention the commission regards as overly intrusive and legally questionable.

The dispute began when NERC directed the Enugu electricity body to uniform its billing structure with national guidelines and adjust rates to align with cost-reflective pricing mandates. NERC also demanded the submission of audited accounts and company data within a tight timeline. In response, Enugu’s commission issued a strong statement asserting that NERC lacks statutory authority to regulate state distribution operators outside the federally licensed distribution companies (Discos). It emphasized that it operates under state jurisdiction, not under federal oversight.

Enugu officials dismissed NERC’s demand for account submission, arguing that the commission never received a licensing status change to merit NERC jurisdiction. They further cautioned that any attempt to enforce tariff uniformity without legislative support could incur jurisdictional overreach. In effect, they warned that compliance risks setting a dangerous precedent—one that could erode states’ constitutionally guaranteed utility autonomy and fuel legal challenges.

NERC, however, has maintained that Enugu’s electricity operations are part of the national grid framework and therefore subject to federal rules governing pricing, metering, and service standards. It claims the state utility is channeling electricity to distributors under the broader Disco licensing system and benefiting indirectly from federal subsidies and interventions. To support its position, NERC asserts that all distribution agents must meet identical regulatory thresholds to ensure consumer protection and sector-wide transparency.

Enugu’s rebuttal went further, calling into question NERC’s consultation process. The state commission noted that the regulatory body failed to engage prior to issuing demands, bypassing customary stakeholder dialogue. It said it will take all necessary legal steps to defend its position, including appealing to the National Assembly or initiating constitutional litigation if needed. Meanwhile, it pledged cooperation with state legislators and partners to define tariff structures that reflect local economic realities while respecting consumers.

Experts in the electricity sector say the dispute spotlights tension between federal oversight and state electricity reforms—an area of increasing activity as the government encourages state-level generation and distribution initiatives. Observers note that the clash highlights legal ambiguity around licensing frameworks, especially as Nigeria moves toward expanded sub-national power distribution models under recent regulatory reform proposals.

Consumer advocates have called for clarity, urging both sides to find common ground and avoid disruptions in billing or supply. They said unresolved conflict could confuse rate-paying households and risk undermining confidence in clear, regulated billing frameworks. Some have suggested mediation via the ministry of power or parliamentary committees to resolve the dispute without litigation.

The controversy underscores broader issues in Nigeria’s electricity sector reform: the balance of regulatory authority between federal and state actors, transparency in billing and subsidies, and the legal basis for expanding power services beyond conventional Disco licensees. As the dispute unfolds, stakeholders will closely monitor its impact—not just on Enugu consumers, but also on precedents for other states considering parallel electricity structures.

Unless a consensual resolution is reached soon, continued conflict could delay tariff reforms, delay regulatory clarity, and sow grid governance uncertainty. At stake is more than billing mechanics—it is the principle of shared authority over electricity delivery and the pace of wider sectoral transformation at state level.