The electricity regulatory commissions and bureaus of 16 states have strongly opposed the proposed Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill 2026, accusing the National Assembly of attempting to reclaim legislative and regulatory powers already devolved to sub-national governments. In a comprehensive memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Power dated May 26, 2026, the state regulators warned that the amendment bill could reverse the most significant institutional gains achieved under recent power sector reforms. The signatories to the joint document represent electricity regulatory bodies from Lagos, Oyo, Edo, Delta, Enugu, Ekiti, Ondo, Abia, Anambra, Bayelsa, Gombe, Imo, Kogi, Nasarawa, Niger, Ogun, and Plateau states. The officials noted that they had previously met with the legislative committee and were directed to consolidate their statutory concerns into a single document for the consideration of federal lawmakers, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, and other relevant industry stakeholders.
In the joint letter, the state regulators noted, “We represent State Regulatory Commissions/Bureaus that have taken advantage of the Electricity Act 2023 to commence the development of our sub-national electricity markets and sectors. We are grateful for the audience you granted us to raise concerns on the ongoing consideration of the proposed Amendment Bill 2026 to the Electricity Act 2023.” They further stated, “As agreed during our discussion, we have collated and consolidated the comments into one document which is hereby attached for the consideration of the Senate and House Committees on Power, NERC and other stakeholders.”
The regulators stated that they have identified 17 highly contentious provisions in the proposed amendments that could undermine the constitutional autonomy granted to states to manage their internal electricity markets. The areas of intense dispute include the authorization of State Houses of Assembly to legislate on electricity, the legal supremacy of sub-national laws within local power markets, and clauses seeking to retain absolute federal oversight over all operations tied to the national grid. Other disputed sections focus on restrictions barring states from wholesale market participation, independent transmission and distribution operations, host community obligations, and the administration of the Power Consumers Assistance Fund. The states also kicked against the expansion of the powers of the Nigerian Electricity Management Services Agency and clauses granting NERC final administrative appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Forum of Electricity Regulators.
In their memorandum, the regulators argued, “A review of the Bill suggests that the general intention is to reverse the devolution of legislative, governance and regulatory powers over electricity matters that occur solely within the respective states to the state governments, in favour of a reconsolidation of powers at the federal level, with the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission retaining full supervisory powers over the market. Effectively, it appears that the intention of the Bill is that Nigeria should continue with the same regime that, for 20 years, has not led to any significant increase in power availability or per capita consumption for Nigerians, despite ever-increasing (and unsustainable) federal debt.”
The state bodies further contended that the National Assembly cannot redefine constitutional powers through ordinary legislation, describing the draft as a fundamental misunderstanding of legal boundaries. The memorandum noted, “Section 2 of the Bill aims to amend Section 2(2)(a)-(e) of the Principal Act. By that section, the National Assembly reserves to itself the power to delegate legislative powers to States’ Houses of Assembly, suggesting that the Bill (or the Principal Act) is the source of the powers of a state to make laws on its electricity markets.” They added, “This provision is based on a shocking miscomprehension of Nigerian constitutional law; it proceeds from the wrong assumption that the NASS, by ordinary legislation and not constitutional amendment, can confer (or restrict) the legislative power of states.” The body emphasized, “The constitutional division of powers is fundamental to federalism, ensuring a balance between national unity and state autonomy. There is no legal framework for the NASS to ‘empower’ state governments to make law by ordinary legislation, as the language of the Bill attempts to do.”
The regulators also highlighted the severe commercial risks of the bill, stating that it introduces regulatory uncertainty that could drive away capital. They stated, “The clear intention behind the new drafting is to reconsolidate in the Federal Government matters solely within the state electricity markets which had been devolved to the states,” They warned, “This will defeat the key objectives of the Electricity Act and the various states’ electricity laws, even before the regime introduced by them has taken any root. It will introduce avoidable disruption in the industry as significant investment decisions have already been taken based on the Electricity Act 2023, and these investments are now put at risk by this proposed amendment.”
To achieve proper development, the state regulators recommended horizontal collaboration rather than top-down federal intervention. The document stated, “What is required, in order to attain the full benefits of the decentralisation of the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry that is the theme of the Fifth Alteration and provided for in the Principal Act, is proper coordination on transmission matters between NERC and state regulators, and not top-down federal legislation.” Rejecting the appellate powers proposed for NERC, the regulators stated, “NERC and the SERCs are on equal standing within their respective constitutional spheres of authority,” They maintained, “The National Assembly cannot arrogate to NERC quasi-judicial authority over SERCs, especially where the dispute might be on a matter over which NERC has no authority.”
Regarding the creation of a regulatory forum to harmonize operations across borders, the memorandum suggested, “The better approach would be a Memorandum of Understanding or similar instrument jointly negotiated by all relevant regulatory bodies in which the principles of coordination and harmonisation will be agreed,” The regulators similarly opposed making all electricity generation, transmission, and supply essential services under federal control, declaring, “The provision is invidious, regressive and should be expunged,” They concluded that since sub-national markets regulate local retail supply, matters related to subsidies and customer contributions to the consumer assistance fund should be managed by state authorities rather than NERC.
0 Comments