- The plan considers projections of economic growth, electricity consumers, needed transmission infrastructure models and the required generation at each stage to meet demand.
- The uproar over the cost of power in the last two years though exacerbated by external factors would again be reduced if generation and transmission foreseen in the LCPDP were adhered to.
Kenya has over the years relied on the least-cost power development plan (LCPDP) to guide the development of the power sector.
The plan considers projections of economic growth from the planning ministry, projections of growth in electricity consumers from KPLC, projections of needed transmission infrastructure from KETRACO and models the required generation at each stage to meet demand.
The planning is comprehensive and annually stepped over a 20-year horizon.
Additionally, this plan is to be updated over a two-to-three-year period to the realities of how the electricity sector has developed.
The plan also has in mind the expected development of the generation cost and overall stabilisation of supply.
Indeed, it is a plan that develops the least optimised economic cost of supplying the country’s needs.
Every crisis in the electricity sector has its root cause in ignoring the LCPDP.
The crisis around the onboarding of new powerplants through the feed-in tariff process and the alleged oversupply from four years ago was brought about by an unrealistic goal to have 5GW on the grid by 2017.
This was at a time when the grid was barely 2GW, and the building of plants was not in synch with the plan and forcing them onto the plan.
The LCPDP developed by technocrats within the sector, at that time was more measured in its projections for 2017 to date, which are still vindicated.
The uproar over the cost of power in the last two years though exacerbated by external factors would again be reduced if generation and transmission foreseen in the LCPDP were adhered to.
We would need to dispatch the thermal plants less had we stuck to the plan.
The transmission lines we talk of today as being important for supplying West Kenya were envisaged and planned for in past LCPDPs.
We ignored the LCPDP and underfunded planned lines and here we are again with a new crisis. There are many other examples to be cited.
Planning for new power lines, demand and generation should be done with the rigour it deserves, and once developed we should move to implementation without unnecessary delays.
The country from time to time also updates its master plan for the electricity sector.
These rigorous exercises are undertaken with great effort and cost must not be put under the shelf at the altar of political decisions.
Should the LCPDP foresee the need for a transmission line, a specific type of powerplant at a specific location or that new demand will occur at a specific point on the grid, this should be respected.
Where the LCPDP may miss a development, three years are surely enough to amend to include any adjustments.
Ambitious plans for the development of the sector had been announced under the white paper by the previous regime to increase generation to 100GW by 2040.
This has since been revised by the current government to 100GW by 2050 at COP28.
On the sidelines of COP28, there have also been announcements of investments.
In the power sector, there have been announcements of 835MW of mostly new geothermal at an investment cost estimated at USD 3.5 billion.
Separately, there have also been announcements of battery storage, and wind and floating solar projects to be undertaken by the state generator.
All these announced, planned and signed deals, we're going on the grid, must be subjected to the rigours of the LCPDP to query the value add, implications and requirements in all facets that the plan models for the power sector.
This is not only good practice and prudent but also ensures the value for money for the Kenyan economy.
Additionally, there must be a defined process of onboarding projects affecting the grid that passes through necessary centralised planning and government technocrats, and that is accessible and repeatable by all.
Deals have the risk of producing inefficient economic outcomes if not subjected to transparent processes and are exposed to accusations of malpractice.
This has indeed been the clamour in recent task forces and parliamentary enquiries.
There are questions as to the ambitiousness of the LCPDP given the aspirations of the country and recent pronouncements on Kenya’s ambitions.
Ambitions are good and give direction to where the sector should go.
They must however also be subjected to rigorous impartial analysis to establish what can be implemented, and, at the very least, what will be required systemwide to achieve these ambitions.
The LCPDP is tried and tested at practical systemic thinking in the electricity sector.
The LCPDP process also provides an objective and largely reproducible process for all investors providing stability and predictability required for sustaining investments.
There is of course the risk and reality of the LCPDP process being bent to the whims of those with influence.
Such moves in the end collectively deteriorate the benefits to the Kenyan economy.
Regardless of this risk, we must build a culture of respecting and following the plan.
George Aluru, CEO Electricity Sector Association of Kenya (ESAK).