Commissioners of energy across the 36 states on Wednesday disclosed their readiness to meet with power distributors to negotiate electricity tariffs that are reflective and not burdensome on residents of the states.
This follows the recent cut in electricity tariff for Band A customers from N209/kWh to N160/kWh by the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission, and the resistance that greeted the development by both power generation and distribution companies.
However, the power distribution companies have kicked against any form of negotiations with states on power tariffs, stressing that the move by the state governments might kill the power sector if care is not taken.
The EERC, on its part, has continued to defend its position and is not ready to give in to the demands of power generators and distributors, as the states defended their decision to regulate the power sector in their various jurisdictions.
Recently, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission disclosed that seven states now control their electricity markets in accordance with the Electricity Act 2023. The states are Enugu, Ondo, Ekiti, Imo, Oyo, Edo, and Kogi. Other states, including Lagos, Ogun, Niger, and Plateau, are expected to complete their transitions between now and September.
Speaking with newsmen on Wednesday, the Chairman, Forum of Commissioners of Power and Energy in Nigeria, who doubles as the Commissioner of Power and Renewable Energy for Cross River State, Prince Eka Williams, stated that though some states might have the wherewithal to subsidise the power supply of their residents, the aim of state governments was mainly to ensure adequate power supply in their states.
He insisted that the Electricity Act 2023 had empowered the states to regulate the sector in their domains, and resisted attempts to counter this development.
But the Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled that an injunction issued by a district judge based in Seattle was not a case of judicial overreach.
“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a universal injunction in order to give the States complete relief,” Judge Ronald Gould wrote.
According to Gould’s ruling, limiting an injunction to the state level would be as ineffective as not blocking the order at all, because of complications that could arise if people move between states with different citizenship rules.
The appeals court also concluded that Trump’s birthright order went against the wording of the US Constitution.
“The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order’s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,” Gould wrote.
Trump’s executive order decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens — a radical reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The current Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, avoided ruling last month on the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order and only addressed the issue of nationwide injunctions, which was nevertheless claimed by Trump as a “giant win.”
The Supreme Court also left open the possibility that executive orders could be blocked via broad class-action lawsuits against the government.
A federal judge earlier this month granted class-action status to any child who would potentially be denied citizenship under Trump’s order, and issued a preliminary halt to it as legal proceedings carry on.
AFP
