Electricity increase was actually 100% and not 75%-UPP Leader


UPP’s Savior Chishimba
UPP’s Savior Chishimba
United Progressive People (UPP) leader Xavier Chishimba is claiming that mathematically the effective increase in electricity tariffs is 100 percent and not 75 percent.

Dr. Chishimba said the tariffs before upward adjustment were 5.7 cents and that the 50 percent increase puts it at 8.55 cents per kilowatt.

He added that in the next couple of months the further increase will be 25 percent of 8.55 cents per kilowatt, which will push the tariff to 10.7 percent kilowatt.

The opposition leader was hasty to state that the increase in a nutshell is just 100 percent especially after the 25 percent awaiting increment which will be effective by Government very soon.

He charged that this is the worst deception by the Patriotic Front (PF) regime and Zambians should realize and know how deceptive the PF led Government is to its citizens.

Dr. Chishimba also noted that the 100 percent effective increase will make Zambia the second highest when it comes to the electricity tariffs in the region.

“mathematically the effective increase in electricity tariffs is 100 percent and not 75 percent and the increase will make Zambia the second highest when it comes to the electricity tariffs in the region” Dr. Chishimba said


    • +2

      Wrong mathematics Dr. first its 50% of 5.7 then in september its 25% of 5.7 again not 25% of 8.55. wrong understanding of issues is very dangerous you uneducated Dr.

  1. +2

    This is part of putting more money in the pockets of the people in Zambia and crate 1 million jobs for pf supporters. PF has good and pro-poor policies and this increase is one such. Not so, dununa reverse family…

  2. 0

    There increase is justified but its the method that has been used.Spreading the increase in a period of three to four years would have been ok by increase a 25% every year.Nobody is in a hurry to have investment in power generation,we would have patiently waited.Manje iyi iliko badi

  3. +1

    Chishimba don’t tell us something wch is not making since,did we askd u to speak on our behalf?. Go and sleep.

  4. 0

    The way some of you respond kwati you are the beneficiaries. JUST WAIT FOR NATURAL JUSTICE. Most of you seem not to care about anything in life and I wonder if you do anything constructive in life.

  5. vote

    The current rate per Kwh is 51 and after 50% increase it is approximately 77 and after 75% increase it is approximately 89%. The increase is therefore not compounded. Mr Chishimba has therefore got wrong.

  6. +1

    If you follow the tariff calculations the less you use power the more units you buy at 15ngwee and the more power you use the more you buy units at 77ngwee..

  7. 0

    You have ALL got it wrong kikiki

    I did attend Maths class at school instead of writing love notes to the pretty girls in class. OK try this one !

    The total increase of 75% attracts 4% excise duty and 16% vat.

    Therefore the increased portion gets lumbered with excise and vat. True increase 90,4%

    Never thought of that one ba Xavier !

  8. vote

    Do a YOY increment from Zesco Business Plan ERB applications the tipping point of commercialisation 2003 to 2017 and see all the averages and effective increments Peak the Highest That is what is important
    Then only about 40% of households are connected to zesco grid and a researched average consumption is between 450 kwh to 500 kwh translating to how much of monthly expenditure for a modal class of 400 kwh ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    In terms of economic influence , zesco has 40% influence and call on households incomes and expenditure that translates in living conditions and styles reflecting the progress and standard of living so the issue of tariff…

  9. vote

    increment and consumption should not be underestimated
    In as much as the need to be cost reflective is understood, the increment was not well graduated or spread to reflect micro ,macro and parity conditions to ensure a sustainable increment and safe landing for all sectors a well calculated annual increment spread over some 1 to 2 years could have been better
    One should also have thought the mines with a pass thru consumption of zesc0 close to 60% of power consumption should have received a share of the 75% as opposed to the less than the 400,000 real customers that have covered the increment these customer numbers may not be sufficient…

  10. vote

    to support the zesco business plan and fit in the tariff migration when one looks at the issue of tariff he should begin from the zesco 2003-2004 business plan and see the 2005 budget speech by magande those pricing strategies must be suitable ,acceptable, sustainable and feasible given the horizons for Zambia’s long-term economic development you need to evaluate these plans using the rumeelts ideas and see what is incrementally right for the zesco and the economy there must be consonance and feasibility
    Though we have the minimum wage about 95% of rural households and 68% of urban households receive less than k 600 with the modal income between…

  11. vote

    k300 to k 500 we expected the tariff increment to have been in line with the living conditions survey reports by central statistical office at most most of the incomes in the low income classes go to meet food about 65% as compared to the likes of united states and others that have reached or attained perceived cost reflectivity (czinkota and ronkainen)
    It will be a business risk for zesco again because with these economic and demographic conditions further price increaments will be constrained on the residential and commercial resulting in the loss of longterm revenues for zesco
    Economic factors or indicators were used and never fully modelled to…

  12. vote

    ensure the sectors sustenance and credibility look at the pearce and robinson -(2003 p 56) there must be a carefully modelled tariff increment and all sectors well aligned and that is only possible by doing an impact assessment together with the cost of service study Not one
    It will also require a well reformed power market structure that reflects the development of the Zambian Electricity Sector Sometimes Monopolies like Zesco can deliver better than the so Called Private Investors who may not reflect the tariff increments to the long-term support of Zambians Long-term Investors who would look for a price and dividend and not the price alone

  13. vote

    You can go on to show how one utility operations and costs are but Zesco Costs should be seen in the hydro 90% orientation and see on best benchmarked LCOE with those better than “LONDON ELCTRICITY”

    Do a Business Plan Evaluation and See Long-term and ovoid being Takeover in capital structures either syno or euro as the minister will say the intent

  14. vote

    My contributions does not add or subtract to Saviour above Its just a personal observations and never political


  15. vote

    You cannot argue with the doctor .it is 50% of the current tariffs plus 25% of the increased tariffs.chizungu chinabwela na ship or go to ZESCO for an explaination baba.simple term for a layman to understand is old price +current price

  16. vote

    cost reflectivity is a long term marginal Cost from a tipping point ,the Dr and Zesco might be able to check there computations from 2003 or 2004 Year on Year

    Its good thing to Invest in Power Projects but its always important to balance opportunities with threats If you are constructing lines and power stations below 1000 Mw and your USD/MWh levelized costs are above 50 USD/Mwh, above standards , at current economics and demographics You better reflect and get the Financing methods correct with a long-term sustainability view

    It will be wise to pause, reflect and evaluate those Plans and scale down to prioritise Power Plants alone may…

  17. vote

    not transmit also as In most cases you will also be adding capacity to already transmission lines and stations reflecting the additional costs also whether you using external financing (nepad.dbsa or kfw)

    As I have come to learn Foreign Direct Investments unwind at one time and its important to see that those investors may not be for long-term So a carefully home grown and supported and modelled Power sector developments will help you for long-term

  18. vote

    You will need to have relevant costs for LRMC as per ERB and Isolate projects specific costs in your LCOE calculations and show justification appropriately as why the increment its a LRMC approach with it so many approaches that the Dr should have used to arrive at correct Increment

    You can use all measures of LRMC from perturbation approach, average incremental cost approach ,Total elements long run incremental approach and Levelised Unit Cost of electricity approach to show that your electricity generations and transmission is within standard but more costly with specific reference to those plants installed or wish to install

    The Dr should check his computations also…

Comments are closed.