ZESA-KAMUCHEMBEREThe problems we face as regards energy security are trivial. The real problem is that of unimaginative policy makers. We are told that the various interventions in place to plug our energy deficit will take years to bear fruit. Load-shedding is here to stay. Those in charge are just not thinking hard enough.

The facts are as follows. Zimbabwe has an 800MW deficit. Despite an installed capacity of 1 900 MW, we are only generating 1 400MW against a peak demand of 2 200MW. A number of interventions are in motion to generate additional power. These will take a number of years to bear fruit. I accept that this is a somewhat simplistic generalisation of the state of affairs but for the purposes of our conversation it will suffice.

There are two ways in which policy makers can confront the power shortages in this country. Thankfully, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. The Government has chosen the path of meeting demand through additional power generation.
Great as that is, we are looking at close to four years before relief from such interventions is felt.

What is troubling is why Government has not explored the second approach — reducing domestic demand by incentivising behavioural change.

Lighting forms a significant chunk of domestic consumption. Government can quickly reduce that consumption by up to 80 percent. These are significant numbers. In 2007 the Australian Government announced that incandescent bulbs would be banned.
Lighting would move to the energy-saving fluorescent bulbs. The reader will know that fluorescent bulbs use just 20 percent of the electricity used by incandescent bulbs to generate the same amount of lighting.

Australia was forced to tread carefully and give a leeway of three years to allow manufacturers to retool for fluorescent bulb production. Zimbabwe needs no such caution seeing that we do not manufacture light bulbs.

By simply imposing a ban on the importation of incandescent bulbs we will knock off an estimated 15 percent of our domestic energy needs.

This is significant. It might not be necessary to impose a complete ban on importation. Simply levying a 2 000 percent duty on incandescent bulbs will have a similar effect without needlessly violating our freedom of choice and access to technology.
A quick detour perhaps, as we speak of the imposition of bans. The recent introduction of mandatory blending is problematic. While I applaud the idea of blending and am looking forward to higher ethanol blends, I find the notion of brute force distasteful.

The idea that one cannot legally import unleaded fuel strikes me as needlessly draconian. There is no need for it. Government can simply impose significant levies on unleaded fuel pushing the price to US$6 a litre. That way those who feel very strongly about this matter still have a legal avenue to fill up their tanks. Absolute bans should be avoided unless they are absolutely unavoidable. Financial persuasion is preferable.

Cooking demands significant power, about 10 percent of domestic consumption. Most households make use of electric stoves. This would make sense in a nation without gas reserves. This is not the case in Zimbabwe. We have significant Coal Bed Methane (CBM) reserves and there is no reason why we should not be making extensive use of gas stoves.

In fact, it is not just that we have significant reserves; Zimbabwe is believed to hold the largest known reserves of CBM in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is a clear need for behavioural change moving people to gas and Government has the capacity to nurture this change. If half the energy wasted on the circumcision drive is devoted to encouraging the adoption of gas we could quickly see a significant shift.
A casual observation seems to show that the vast majority of Zimbabweans are using dated cooking equipment. Most stoves were purchased years ago and have not been replaced. Our people are of limited income and a stove is a significant investment.

Unless it is beyond repair, it will not be replaced. This presents an interesting opportunity for policy. The Chinese are eager to seal government-to-government deals. There is nothing to stop Zesa from reaching an agreement with Chinese manufacturers to supply gas stoves. Zesa would cover the cost by imposing a US$5 monthly charge (an entirely arbitrary figure) in addition to the standard bill. The debt would be paid off in just a few years.

Such a move would do two things. Demand for electric power would dip during traditional peak periods.
In addition to that, our gas industry would grow on the back of domestic consumption. Thousands of jobs would be created. All this would cost Zesa no money.

It is simply a case of leveraging a privileged position as the sole supplier (virtual) of energy.
Part of the problem with our current energy policy is the failure to realise that simply plugging the deficit will not suffice. There is a need for a sustainable energy policy. We must not forget that we have millions of rural dwellers that have as much a right to electricity.
If these millions are plugged in, we will find ourselves with yet more power shortages. Not only so, industry is currently depressed, operating at perhaps 35 percent capacity. Let us indulge faith and imagine the economy recovers. Industry will place a considerable strain on the energy supply. I could speak of many of our idle farmers who are currently being capacitated. Their energy needs will grow and in turn threaten the effectiveness of the interventions actioned by government.

I would think it prudent to encourage (as a matter of policy) energy independence for domestic consumers. Solar power is affordable and should be encouraged through an assortment of initiatives.

Solar systems (or other renewables) can be bundled with all new builds by law. Zesa can again strike deals with the eager Chinese to install these systems while Zesa pays over 10 years. I doubt consumers would object to having a solar system plus a brand new gas stove installed in return for a fixed monthly repayment of US$30 over 10 years. My numbers are arbitrary but the principle is unchanged. The Chinese are eager to engage in such government-to-governmet deals. The only thing standing in our way is our terribly limited imagination. I hesitate to use the word incompetence.

Nicholas Goche’s success in rehabilitating our highways by leveraging tollgates should be an example to other government agencies. Problems are not always solved through fiscal support. We need clever partnerships. We need to leverage what we have.
Monopolies are not always grotesque, sometimes they are very much benign and allow governments to do what would otherwise not be possible. Zesa must leverage its virtual monopoly and do something big. We are tired of small minds in government.

Ndatenda.

Ndini muchembere wenyu Amai Jukwa.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey