Pooling power in East Africa

ENERGY

The development of the East African Community (EAC) has given a shot in the arm to efforts to improve transmission links in the region and the political and economic jealousies of yesteryear are being replaced by healthy competition. By NEIL FORD.

In place of grand schemes for industrialisation, the governments of the Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania are targeting a step by step approach to development. In the power sector, this new approach is manifested by the realisation that each of the EAC members cannot hope to be self sufficient in power generation in the long term.

While the power pools of West and Southern Africa attract a great deal of publicity, the EAC's East African Power Master Plan (EAPMP) has received far less attention. The plan involves a series of improvements to power connections in the region and demonstrates that the three governments have agreed to the creation of an integrated power pool, at least in theory. Although the region lags behind the development of the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP), it could well be in place before its West African equivalent.

The key to the EAPMP is the 330Kv line planned between the Kenyan capital Nairobi and the EAC 'capital' and northern Tanzanian town of Arusha. As a transmission line already exists between Uganda and Kenya, the new connection would enable the transfer of spare power production in one EAC member state to either of the others. The Nairobi-Arusha line has been mooted for some time but in May this year, Don Rairoh, the Kenyan Ministry of Energy's chief geologist, indicated that the feasibility study had been finalised and so construction work could now begin. According to the Kenyan Ministry, the connection could be in use by the end of 2004.

Beyond the obvious implications for East Africa, this could also tie the three countries into the SAPP, as Tanzania is a member of both projects. Construction work on another 330Kv transmission line, this time from Pensulo in Zambia to Mbeya in south west Tanzania, has already begun. The 670 kilometre line is expected to cost $153m and is scheduled for completion in 2004. Although the ability of East Africa to pay for large scale power imports is in some doubt, a transmission grid stretching from Cape Town to Mombasa could be in place by 2005.

EXPORTING POTENTIAL

However, if even half of the generation plants planned for East Africa over the next few years are actually brought on stream, the region could actually find itself as a power exporter. While this seems a far fetched concept at this stage, such a scenario is not beyond the realms of possibility. Moreover, the diversity of planned generating projects provides some assurance that power sector planners have finally learnt the lesson of over dependency.

At present, 75% of East Africa's generating capacity is provided by HEP, enabling the devastating droughts of the past five years to have a terrible impact upon power supplies. Throughout the long 1999-2001 drought, levels at a number of dams steadily fell so low that production had either to be severely curtailed or, in the case of the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco) Mtera plant, shut down entirely. However, because Uganda was not nearly as badly afflicted as the two coastal states, increased HEP capacity around the region could provide part of the solution.

Most parts of East Africa have two rainy seasons, separated by long, dry periods. However, the timing and intensity of the rains vary somewhat, so that increased production capacity in Uganda could be transmitted to Kenya and Tanzania if the circumstances and severity of the 1999-2001 drought were ever to be repeated.

The Ugandan government and Uganda Electricity Board (UEB) have lined up five major generating projects to boost domestic capacity and to provide enough for increased exports. The new Karuma dam plant will contribute up to 200MW, while the modernisation of the Nalubaale HEP plant should add another 180MW.

The keynote project, however, is the famed $550m Bujagali Falls plant. To be built and run by AES Nile Power, the first phase of the project would provide 250MW, while subsequent expansion could produce a massive 2,000MW. Environmental and wildlife groups mounted a vigorous campaign to oppose the construction of the plant, arguing that it would affect water flow downstream, disturbing a number of important habitats.

The World Bank was concerned about both these and financial issues. The plant will only be cost effective if the Uganda shilling does not depreciate too rapidly and so the Bank sought reassurances from the Ugandan government about economic policy.

Following the publication of its Inspection Panel report, the World Bank finally gave its go-ahead to the project at the end of June, although it insisted that geothermal alternatives also be investigated. The Kalagala Falls area is also to be set aside as a protected habitat.

Callisto Madavo, the World Bank's Vice President for Africa, said: "Uganda is a country where less than 3% of the population has access to electricity, and electricity shortages have substantially impeded investment, private sector development and economic growth." Doubts remain about the strain that could be placed upon the state coffers from the government's share of investment costs. However, if as expected most capacity at the plant is not required domestically, excess production can hopefully be exported to the rest of East Africa and even further afield.