Addis Fortune (Addis Ababa)
Omer Redi
1 June 2009
(Page 3 of 3)
Q: From the report on your desk, I can see that the red line indicates the lowest acceptable level of water, while the black line indicates the actual water level in the dams. But I also see that for most of the dams, for the most part, these lines are overlapping. Has the current aggregate water level throughout the dams across the country reached the lowest level?
Now we want to keep the aggregate reduction per day to an acceptable centimetre. This [the report I have] is of hourly reductions for every 24 hours. But the net effect, we want to keep where it should be. [For example] if we want to maintain a one centimetre reduction a day in Melka Wakena Dam, we will avoid further reduction by cutting power because we cannot compromise any other way. We have been successful so far and we have to monitor levels 24 hours. Every one at the dams, the transmission lines, sub-stations, the distribution centres and the consumer must be vigilant.
Q: What is the daily acceptable level of reduction?
Well in Melka Wakena, say one centimetre, while in Gilgel Gibe II, it is about two centimetres.
Q: In normal times, how much is the daily average reduction?
It depends on the season, the time, the day, the volume of water in the dams; but it could be 10cm to 20cm.
Q: What about the water supply to Gigel Gibe (GG) II. Obviously there is a problem with the level of water in all the dams, including Gilgel Gibe I, which is the source of water for the former. So, if the volume of water in the source dam (GG I) is low, if it remains at that level in the coming months, how you will you be able to generate power from GG II even if it is commissioned?
In the first operation, hopefully by the end of July, which is also a good season, the dam would get sufficient water. But even with the minimum water level with which GG I can't operate, there is a possibility of opening the bottom outlet gate and filling the tunnel and getting power from GG II. Its hydrological harmony is taken care of in earlier design steps. So we still have room to play in and July is a still a reasonable time when even in the worst case scenario, we can generate power from GG II.
Q: There are experts who argue that though the plans for the currently under construction hydroelectric power generation projects have long been on the shelves of EEPCo's offices, they have not been implemented and initiated until recently when you started this aggressive and intensive works on about six hydroelectric power projects. Why have those plans waited for so long while the demand was obviously expected to increase when the country entered into a free market economy?
Unfortunately, it is not wise to blame the past. We have to learn from our mistakes and weaknesses in the past because it is the best way to benefit from the future. In this aspect, we can look at where we were in the early 90s. There were only 320Mw with only 3,000Km of high voltage and about 7,000Km of medium and low voltage networks and about 320 towns with access to electricity.
But now, including the emergency 270Mw, we have 9,000Km high voltage lines, 75,000Km medium and low voltage lines and 3,200 towns under service. The delay has internal and external factors. While following a very sluggish and conventional way of expansion in the planning, feasibility, designing, implementation and financing phases, what we had achieved in 50 years was about six, seven or a maximum of 10Mw per annum. Hydro plants came into operation at about 10 to 15-year intervals with hundreds of megawatts. But there were no complete and full-fledged feasibility study and bankable document.
Q: There are also arguments that before indications of the possible power crisis started to float - the time the current power generation projects were started - there was less commitment at the highest level of the government about power generation. That means the sector had not been given the emphasis it deserves at the beginning of the free market system. Do you share this view?
It is not always the same. There is no complete homogeneity in such thinking. But as far as I know, there is a far-sighted vision and commitment from top leaders. But there were also those in the top level of the government who thought otherwise. There were, thus, two conflicting ideas.
For example, though our financiers had said that Gibe I would be enough for 10 years, and thus, advised us to invest the money in other sectors, the government continued to work on the other projects. In fact, it was before we consumed Gibe I for only 10 months that the power problem started, let alone being enough for 10 years.
Q: For example, the infrastructure development area the government is known to be successful in is the road sector. This is due to the emphasis the sector has enjoyed from the government. Do you believe that your sector has been given equal attention?
Here there is a mixed approach. Like you said, the road sector gets a lot of attention and is attractive to financiers since it is a main development infrastructure. But in the case of power, the financiers want us to be stable financially and work as a business entity on one hand. On the other hand, they want us to be development-oriented businesses. So in this respect there is a dual approach and definitely this sector faces two challenges in bringing these to one.
Q: When do you expect to reach a level where EEPCo and you, as a senior official of the corporation, enjoy compliments following your successful achievements in developing the energy sector as the road sector doe now?
Handling the power sector is a very tough issue, which, sometimes, is higher than the socio-economic crisis. Unfortunately, power is a very determinant factor in every bit of life. Every single life in every second is dependent on energy. So has the fast development move. Our big challenge is the dependence on foreign resources. When we are out of this dependence, definitely this will mean we can achieve all our national objectives.
Q: When do you expect EEPCo to take Ethiopia out of the current situation?
To be frank, we have a very bright future. If we finish the three projects ahead of us - Beles, Tekeze and GG II - and when we come out of the daily challenges we have to face over GG III, then we are likely to be free from the current problems.
Beyond that, we have another cascade of projects in line; I am not going to mention the details because these will be announced by the government soon. And our strong foreign market will start in January 2010. Then our dependence on foreign financing will end.
Q: EEPCo has been under different structures under the current government. In the first ten years since EPRDF has come to power, it was under the former Ministry of Infrastructure, along with 12 other government agencies. Now it is under the Ministry of Mines and Energy. Do you feel that you should have been under a ministry which deals only with energy issues, as in the case of some other countries like Kenya? Do you believe that such structural issues and instability have hindered you from achieving what you could and should have achieved, perhaps, if you were under a ministry that is directly responsible only for energy or power generation?
As you know, there is a major national level restructuring process going on in the country right now. The national transformation covers all sectors; the energy or power sector is one of them.
If you see the development [over the years] the infrastructure ministry was multi-disciplinary, now it is reduced to a few focused sectors. The structural issue is a top government level, macro-level policy makers' issue. If you see the natural progress more focused sectoral ministries have been making; after that, the national reform program has been launched.
As a result of the past and current development, as well as the dynamism of the power sector, now we are also entering a new restructuring phase. For my own sector, within my own mandate, I could say it very much demands very basic restructuring. We need a more focused, optimum, customer-oriented and sectoral structure based on the core process. The construction and the operation should be separate businesses; the generation, transmission and distribution should be organized into a bundle under public ownership.
Q: So have you suggested these changes? Does that mean it should have its own ministry?
The natural growth of the sector leads us to the restructuring, and I think the issue is being discussed by higher officials in the government.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2009 Addis Fortune. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
