This privatization was marked by two main innovations in terms of low voltage, which will be specifically interested in the part of this process: the configuration of the customer and the new fee schedule.
1. The evolution of tariff structures in Cameroon
It is from 2003 (two years after privatization) which was known in Cameroon, the first increase in rates. The established grid segmenting customers according to use: domestic, professional practice and public lighting.
A consumer belongs to the first category when using electricity for domestic purposes only (lighting, appliances, etc.). In the second category, it is consumers who use electricity exclusively for commercial activities, crafts, and services, all branches (pharmaceuticals, crushing mill, restaurant, pubs, ...) or when above activities are linked to domestic uses. Lighting Public concerns only the Commons, 6:30 p.m. to 6:00 as part of the street lighting.
Before privatization, the tariff structure was complex: 24 awards were applied in medium voltage and low voltage, and they depended already uses. The selling price in the category of low voltage were 50FCFA for consumption exceeding 90 kWh and CFAF 58.15 beyond 9 0kWh . The innovation brought in fees after the privatization has been the introduction of seasonality: dry season (1 st January to 30 June) and a wet season (1 st July to 31 December). The price per kWh varies depending now these seasons.
For domestic use, the fee schedule is as follows:
For the social tariff, consumption are exempt from VAT and other Only the first 110 kWh are exempt from VAT.
For professional use, the fee schedule is as follows:
The tariff applied to this segment consists of two terms: a term called fixed monthly standing charge and a term proportional to the level of consumption and duration of use of power subscribed. The fixed term is 2000FCFA, and the total amount of fixed monthly premium payable is proportional to the power subscribed during the subscription, whichever is 2.2 kVA (kilo Volt Ampere) this amount will 4400 FCFA (2000 * 2.2).
For lighting, the selling price of electricity municipalities are 40FCFA/kWh wet season and 46.5 FCFA / kWh dry season.
In 2007, a new fee schedule was established for low voltage customers, and is marked by the removal of the fixed premium and the pricing by season. The main information of this new pricing is increasing the social block which increased from 50 kWh to 110 kWh .
This table shows that the deletion of the season (dry season and wet season) in fees led to a price cap, which is now 85 FCFA / kWh for subscribers using electricity for domestic purposes, and 92 FCFA / kWh for those using electricity for non domestic (business use). This ceiling is known as the price-cap, which made its appearance in Britain during the privatization of some utilities. Since
April 2010, a new fee schedule has been established by AES-Sonel, and is as follows:
This chart indicates again a cap on electricity rates, ranging to 95 FCFA / kWh for residential consumers and 96 FCFA / kWh for business subscribers.
The analysis indicates that, so made a decade, there has been three increases in electricity rates. This has marked the last point of contention between the authority (Ministry of Energy and Water-MINE), the Agency for Regulation of the Electricity Sector (ARSEL), and the public service concessionaire BSE-SONEL. However, these increases are really justified?
2. Rising electricity prices is it really justified?
- In look after the interests of consumers and protect their rights in terms of price, supply and quality of electric power;
- In implement, monitor and control system tariff established in accordance with the methods and procedures set by the Administration in charge of electricity (...).
The creation of the Regulatory Agency had therefore to control the buyer about the abuses that consumers could become victims, given that privatization would automatically be accompanied by an increase in electricity tariffs.
Going through the contract under concession and license in its article 5 ( retail prices exclusive ), one realizes that actually increases are expected during the first two five-year after privatization, and the forms of Fee electricity. These increases are about 3% for the first five-year period, and 5% for the second, the adjustment to be made on the basis of review of at least 10%. Reading this contract therefore indicates that consumers were faced with two increases up after ten years, ie until 2011. However, what can justify the third increase which we have suffered in April?
To answer this question, we will refer to paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the contract under concession and license, which stipulates that " notwithstanding, (...), the formulas for tariff control, the formulas for tariff control derivatives or revenue control formulas derived will be reviewed in exceptional circumstances and at any time if the event unpredictable and beyond the control of SONEL or the Agency. (...) To this end, SONEL will propose a revision to the Agency. The revision of tariff control formulas, formulas of Fee derivatives or control forms of income will be derived by the Agency in consultation with SONEL. This review may be accompanied also by decision of the Agency, after consulting SONEL, a modification of the obligations of quantitative and qualitative SONEL (...) "
It is found that this clause authorizes the revision of electricity tariffs at any time, provided that events occur unpredictably. What event is it unpredictable? No details are given at this level in the contract, and we would love to have a list, albeit limited to events that could characterize unpredictable by AES-Sonel.
Referring to French dictionary, the unpredictable returns to what can be expected. It is indeed an event whose occurrence is unexpected. While it is certainly not easy to characterize such an event, we can still identify those considered normal or conventional, to get an idea of who might be classified as unpredictable events.
It is a flaw at this level that gives a large enough margin to AES-Sonel regarding proposed revisions of tariffs which ARSEL can not really oppose. Any opposition to lead compensation, as defined in paragraph 3 of Article 5: " (...), the Agency may, in exceptional circumstances to oppose the tariff revision proposed by SONEL. In this case, the Agency, the Minister of Electricity Sector and the Minister of Finance shall, after consultation SONEL, any form of adequate compensation for the benefit of the latter to compensate for the shortfall in this respect . ". This confirms the fact that significant leeway AES-Sonel on the Cameroonian government.
The increase in electricity tariffs led to a press release, summing AES-Sonel back to the old fee schedule. This position marked a divide between the mine and ARSEL. The latter being accused of failing to comply with any contractual obligations which is to safeguard consumer interests. It has witnessed the questioning of the role of each other. However, the Agency can really oppose the rate increase when the contract and the specifications provided for? We saw above that any opposition can be accompanied by compensatory measures from the State and after consultation with the AES-Sonel. These steps have been made by the Cameroon government, or else will be, to compensate for the shortfalls of the company. This opposition to higher electricity tariffs, the Minister of Energy, sounds more like a measure to ease social tensions already created in consumers.
In sum, we observe that the third rate increase is not a surprise and may not be the last on the decade since the contract provides. Any opposition to lead compensation from the state. But the state will he the means to compensate whenever the rate increase proposed by the concessionaire?
Although the rate increase has been the point of contention between the mine and ARSEL, we must also note that it is well justified and was predictable according to Article 5 paragraph 2 of the framework contract and concession license.
failures observed show that the privatization of SONEL was poorly conducted, since many terms are advantageous to the buyer. Everything has been biased from the outset and one wonders how an entire state was left angry and cheated by a group of foreign interests? By focusing solely on Article 5 of the contract, we think his change is imperative, so it is not only advantageous to the dealer, however we will have to wait until 2021, when deadline of the end of that contract, that is to say in ten years. Keep hope and stay patient.
