President Bola Tinubu’s reconstitution of the Board of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), following Senate confirmation of nominees on December 16, marks yet another attempt to reset a regulator struggling to extricate itself from a perception of failure. The appointment of Dr Musiliu Olalekan Oseni as chairman comes at a critical moment for Nigeria’s power sector—one burdened by persistent darkness, consumer anger, and deep mistrust of regulatory authority. The new board has the arduous assignment of breaking from the unholy past
  
Dr Oseni, who joined NERC in 2017 and rose to vice chairman, brings institutional memory and continuity at a time of profound change. His tenure, which runs until the completion of his statutory 10-year term under the Electricity Act, 2023, places him at the centre of licensing, tariff approvals, and compliance—the levers that determine whether Nigeria’s electricity market stabilises or continues to falter. His elevation, effective December 1, 2025, coincides with a significant legal and structural transition in the power sector in over two decades.
 
The reconstitution, therefore, marks yet another defining moment in Nigeria’s long and tortuous electricity reform journey. It transcends a routine administrative exercise at a time of legitimacy crisis that has dogged the Commission for years. Chronic sector failure, weak enforcement, concerns over regulatory capture, poor consumer protection, and a steady erosion of public confidence have combined to make reform unavoidable. After more than a decade of NERC’s existence, Nigeria’s power sector remains largely dysfunctional—defined by erratic supply, collapsing infrastructure, estimated billing, and endless tariff controversies. A regulator that presides over systemic failure cannot escape calls for reform. A regulator that fails to regulate effectively must itself be reformed.
 
The NERC has frequently been accused of executive interference, policy capture by powerful market operators—particularly Distribution Companies (DisCos) and Generation Companies (GenCos)—and an inability to enforce sanctions impartially. Regulatory independence is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Without it, consumers remain exposed and operators are undisciplined. Reconstituting the Board was therefore essential to restoring credibility and autonomy.
  
Perhaps the most damaging charge against NERC has been its failure to protect consumers. Estimated billing persists despite repeated directives against it. Consumer complaints linger unresolved, while DisCos routinely violate service standards with minimal consequence. Although NERC wields extensive powers under the Electric Power Sector Reform Act, defaulting DisCos continue to operate without serious penalties. Performance agreements are breached with impunity, and investment and service delivery obligations are routinely ignored. A regulator that cannot enforce its own rules invites irrelevance.
 
Under the previous Board, NERC appeared more preoccupied with tariff increases than with measurable improvements in electricity supply. The introduction of Service-Based Tariffs (SBT) was premised on the assurance that higher tariffs would apply only where supply hours improved. Yet widespread complaints emerged of consumers being placed on higher tariff bands without enjoying the minimum required hours of supply. Millions of consumers remain unmetered, even as arbitrary and inflated estimated bills proliferate—often bearing no relationship to actual consumption. These practices directly contradicted NERC’s own Meter Asset Provider (MAP) regulations and were widely perceived as institutionalised exploitation. The commission was repeatedly accused of failing to sanction DisCos for persistent overbilling.
   
The challenge before the new NERC Board is therefore clear. Regulation must shift from revenue protection to service delivery. The credibility of this new leadership will not be measured by policy documents or press statements, but by tangible outcomes: improved hours of supply, fair and transparent billing, including the elimination of the band system (consumers should pay in accordance with the electricity they receive). The new NERC should strive for swift resolution of consumer complaints and visible enforcement of rules. Years of erratic power supply, inflated bills, and weak oversight have left Nigerians paying more for less.
  
The collapse of the national grid on December 29, 2025, which plunged most of the country into darkness, was not an isolated incident. It was the fourth major grid failure in a single year. The Nigerian Independent System Operator (NISO) described it as a “system disturbance,” but Nigerians know it for what it truly is: a recurring national embarrassment. How long will the country continue to endure grid collapses as a routine feature of daily life? Blackouts, it seems, have been normalised.
 
This is the grim context in which a newly constituted NERC Board must operate. The task before it is clear and urgent: tariffs must be firmly and transparently tied to service delivery. The service-based tariff regime must work, not merely on paper. Where supply fails, tariffs must fall automatically. Refunds and customer downgrades should follow without discretion. Regulation must reward performance and punish failure.
  
Estimated billing remains the most visible symbol of regulatory collapse. It is unjust, anti-poor, and corrosive to public trust. Universal metering must therefore be treated as an emergency, not a distant aspiration. Clear deadlines must be enforced, and Distribution Companies that persist in arbitrary billing should face stiff sanctions, including licence review where necessary. Electricity regulation is not about guaranteeing profits for inefficient operators; it is about balancing investor confidence with consumer protection.
   
Electricity tariffs affect every household and business. Yet tariff-setting has often been cloaked in technical opacity and hurried consultations. Nigerians deserve to understand why they are paying what they pay. The new Board must simplify tariff explanations, publish performance data, and regulate in the open. One of the most damaging legacies of the past is the culture of impunity within the electricity market.
 
The new NERC Board must reintroduce the fear of regulation—fair, lawful, but firm. Sanctions must be swift, public, and proportionate. Naming and shaming chronic offenders should become standard practice.
 
Equally critical is the restoration of regulatory authority. A market without consequences cannot function. Licence conditions, performance agreements, and consumer protection rules must be enforced firmly, consistently, and publicly. Transparency must also define this new era of regulation. Tariff-setting should no longer be shrouded in technical opacity. Nigerians deserve clear explanations of how tariffs are determined and access to data on supply levels, system losses, and collections. Regulation conducted behind closed doors only breeds suspicion and resentment.
  
As the Electricity Act opens space for state electricity markets, NERC’s role is evolving, not diminishing. The regulator must now manage a more complex and decentralised power landscape—one that encourages embedded generation, state participation, and innovation without regulatory confusion. Clarity, coordination, and fairness must guide relations between federal and state electricity markets.
  
Nigerians are weary of reforms that reform nothing. This Board has a narrow window to prove that regulation can finally serve the public interest. The burden is heavy, but the test is simple: deliver light, justify bills, and protect consumers.