UNDERSTANDING THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION FRAMEWORK IN THE NIGERIAN ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR UNDER THE MARKET RULES

The Market Rules, otherwise known as the Market Rules for the Transitional and Medium Term Stages of the Nigerian Electricity Industry, is a body of rules established for the efficient, competitive and transparent operation of the wholesale electricity market in Nigeria. This body of rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Market Rules” or “the Rules”) sets out the responsibilities of the three operational units of the Transmission Company of Nigeria (TCN), namely: the Market Operator (MO), the System Operator (SO) and the Transmission Service Provider (TSP), as well as the other successor companies of the former Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), and new entrants. Together these stakeholders are called Market participants. The Market Rules also sets out the pricing and settlement system for the market, as well as a framework for dispute resolution within the sector.

 Section 26(2) of the Electric Power Sector Reform (EPSR) Act 2005 is the authority for the development and approval of the Market Rules. Under the subsection, the SO has the responsibility for developing the Market Rules, which shall be approved by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (the President) upon the recommendation of the Minister of Power. The SO also has the responsibility for developing amendments to the Rules. Such amendments shall, however, be approved by the sector regulator, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) before they come into force.[1] Having gone through those processes, the Market Rules was approved by the President Nigeria in 2009[2].

 Although the Market Rules is a major regulatory instrument in the administration of the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry (NESI), and has been in operation for over 10 years, it is yet to receive sufficient attention from both within and outside the NESI. It is therefore not surprising that some of its difficult provisions seem to have gone unnoticed or unchallenged over these years. For example, the legal status of the Market Operator as presently constituted seems to be in doubt. This is because neither the EPSR Act 2005, the Market Rules, nor the Grid Code[3] created the MO.

 Section 66(1)(f) of the EPSR Act clearly provided for market operation functions as follows:

… a system operation licence shall authorise the licensee to carry on system operation including … administration of the wholesale electricity market including the activity of administration of settlement payments, in accordance with the market rules.

In other words, the SO is by law empowered to undertake both system and market operations as a single function. This is contrary to the existing practice in TCN where the functions are undertaken by two separate units[4].

Suffice it to say that a detailed review of the Rules is not intended in this brief intervention. Rather, the focus is to introduce readers to the elaborate dispute resolution provisions of the Rules, which have largely been ignored by the NESI. Although NERC has recently been promoting the alternative dispute resolutions of the Market Rules within the NESI[5], this has not stopped market participants from referring their disputes to NERC for resolution.

 One wonders whether the cold reception is an indication of the Rules’ deficiency, complexity or some other inadequacy. It is hoped that this limited intervention will throw some light on this rather overlooked matter, and hopefully, provoke more interest and more rigorous interrogation of the Market Rules from industry participants and general stakeholders in the Nigerian power sector.

 Dispute Resolution under Rules 42 and 43 of the Market Rules

Rules 42 and 43 are the major provisions of the Market Rules that deal with dispute resolution. Rule 42 established the office of the Dispute Resolution Counsellor (DRC) and the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), in addition to some other industry panels and committees, including the Stakeholder Advisory Panel.[6] They also contain detailed provisions on the jurisdiction of the DRP, as well as the procedures for the resolution of disputes, including negotiation, mediation/ conciliation and arbitration.

 The importance the Market Rules regarding dispute resolution in the NESI is underscored by the following provision of Rule 43.2.5:

 Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where any dispute arises, the parties concerned shall comply with the procedures set forth in this Rule 43 and shall not make such dispute a subject matter of any civil or other proceeding.

 In other words, market participants are prohibited from resorting to other means of dispute resolution, including litigation, for the resolution of disputes that are covered by the provisions of Rule 43.

 We shall directly proceed to examine these provisions in some detail.

 The Dispute Resolution Counsellor

The Rules established the office of the Dispute Resolution Counsellor (DRC). Under Rule 42.3.1, the DCR shall be appointed by NERC, and shall perform the following functions:

(a)       administering and ensuring effective operation of the dispute resolution provisions of the Market Rules and the Grid Code;

(b)       specifying the format for notices of dispute and responses;

(c)       nomination of members of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP);

(d)       assigning members of the DRP to mediate, conciliate, arbitrate or otherwise resolve disputes in accordance with the provisions of the Market Rules; and

(e)       facilitating the resolution of disputes governed by the dispute resolution provisions of the Market Rules and the Grid Code.

Among others, the DRC is required to have the following qualifications[7]:

(a)       similar experience or professional qualifications as NERC’s commissioners as stipulated in section 34 of the EPSR Act[8];

(b)       detailed understanding and experience of dispute resolution practice and procedures that do not involve civil litigation before the courts, such as mediation and arbitration;

(c)       an understanding of the Nigerian electricity industry or the capacity to quickly acquire such an understanding;

(d)       his spouse or relative is not a director, officer, employee or agent of TCN, or a power sector participant or an affiliate of a participant, or a power sector licensee or an affiliate of a licensee; and

(e)       his spouse or relative has no direct or indirect legal or beneficial interest in, or commercial affiliation with TCN, a power sector participant or an affiliate of a participant, or a power sector licensee or an affiliate of a licensee.

 The Dispute Resolution Panel – Rule 42.3.7

Under Rule 42.3.7, the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) shall be constituted by NERC, and shall be responsible for resolving disputes between:

(a)       the SO or the MO or a transmission licensee and any participant;

(b)       the MO and any person who has been denied certification by the MO as a participant; and

(c)       participants;

to the extent that such disputes are, in accordance with the jurisdiction of the DRP as prescribed in Rule 43.

 Membership of the Dispute Resolution Panel – Rule 42.3.8

Under Rule 42.3.8, the DRP shall consist initially of at least three members and, upon its full composition at the initiation of the Medium Term Market[9], shall consist of at least ten qualified persons, each of whom shall be appointed by NERC.

 The members of the DRP shall serve for a term of five years, and upon expiration of term, a member may be re-appointed for a further term of five years. 

 Appointment of Members of the Dispute Resolution Panel – Rule 42.3.9

(a)       The DRC shall, upon a request by NERC, provide NERC with a list of persons qualified to be appointed to the DRP at the time the request is made.

 (b)       NERC shall work with the DRC to develop the criteria and processes for the selection of members of the DRP and may consult with the DRC from time to time in that regard.

 Qualification of the members of the Dispute Resolution Panel – Rule 42.3.10:    

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of the DRP unless the person:

 (a)       has a detailed understanding and experience of dispute resolution practice and procedures that do not involve civil litigation before the courts, such as mediation and arbitration;

 (b)       has an understanding of the Nigerian electricity industry or the capacity to quickly acquire such an understanding;

 (c)       is not, and does not have a spouse or relative that is, a director, officer, employee or agent of a market participant or an affiliate of a participant; or a licensee or an affiliate of a licensee;

 (d)       or his spouse or relative has no direct or indirect legal or beneficial interest in, or commercial affiliation with a participant or an affiliate of a participant; or a licensee or an affiliate of a licensee.

 Jurisdiction of the Dispute Resolution Panel – Rule 43.2

In addition to the provisions of Rule 42.3.7, Rule 43.2.1 expanded the jurisdiction of the DRP, and the application of Rule 43 of the Market Rules to the following: 

 (a)       any dispute between the SO, the MO or the TSP and any participant which arises under, in connection with, or in relation to the Market Rules or the Grid Code, including a dispute relating to their alleged violation or breach by the SO, MO, or TSP or a participant;

 (b)       disputes relating to an order of denial by the MO of authorisation to any person to participate in the Market Operator-administered market;

 (c)       a dispute between the SO, the MO or the TSP and a Participant specified in the Market Rules or the Grid Code as being subject to resolution in accordance with or pursuant to the Market Rules or otherwise agreed by the SO or MO or the TSP and a participant to be resolved pursuant to Rule 43;

 (d)       any dispute between the SO, the TSP and a participant, in connection with, in relation to or arising from the terms of any agreement, including an agreement between the TSP and such participant for connection of the facilities of such participant to the transmission system;

 (e)       a dispute between the SO or MO and a participant, or between participants regarding the interpretation of the Market Rules or the Grid Code; and

 (f)        any other disputes between participants where all of the participants which are parties to the dispute consent in writing to the application thereof.

 The Dispute Resolution Process

Rule 43.2 of the Market Rules contains detailed provisions regarding the different stages in dispute resolution process, and the applicable dispute resolution methods that might be adopted at each stage, from negotiation, mediation/conciliation and arbitration. The stages and processes might be summarized as follows:

 Stage 1:          Negotiation – Rule 43.4        

During the negotiation stage under Rule 43.4, disputing parties shall take the following steps:

 (a)       They shall first, make bona fide efforts to negotiate and resolve their dispute prior to filing a notice of dispute where a settlement cannot be reached.

 (b)       Each party shall designate an individual of sufficiently seniority in its organization with authority to negotiate the dispute and to participate in such negotiations.

 (c)       The timeline for parties to the dispute to commence the negotiation as follows:

 (i)        Within 15 business days[10] of the date of receipt of the order, direction, instruction or decision where the dispute involves an order, direction, instruction or other decision of the SO and/or the MO; and

 (ii)       in all other cases, within 30 business days of the later of the date on which the event that is the subject matter of the dispute occurred; or the date on which the party initiating the negotiation became aware or, with the exercise of due diligence, ought to have become aware, of the event that is the subject matter of the dispute[11].

 Stage 2:          Notice of Dispute and Response – Rule 43.5

Upon failure of negotiation, or where the Rules permit the parties to dispense with it, Rule 43.5 requires the disputing parties to move to stage two of the dispute resolution process, which provides, among others, as follows:

 (a)       Under Rule 43.5.1, after 20 business days of the commencement of negotiations, or such other period as the parties may agree, either of the parties may:

 (i)        immediately notify the other parties to the dispute that negotiations are terminated;

 (ii)       within 20 business days of the issue of the notice of termination of negotiation, serve a written notice of the dispute on the respondent; and

 (iii)      file with the DRC a copy of the notice of dispute, together with proof of service of the notice of dispute on each respondent.

 (b)       The notice of dispute shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the DRC; shall be signed by the applicant and shall, among others, specify in reasonable detail:

 (i)        the nature and basis of the complaint;

(ii)       the parties to the dispute and the name of any person having knowledge of or who may be directly affected by the dispute;

(iii)      a concise summary of the facts underlying the dispute;

(iv)      the relief sought and a summary of the grounds for such relief; and

(v)       any documentation upon which the Applicant intends to rely in support of the complaint.

 (c)       A respondent shall within 10 business days of service of a notice of dispute, serve a written response on the applicant and on any respondent to a cross-claim identified in the response, and shall file with the DRC a copy of the response, together with proof of service of the response on the applicant and on any such respondent[12].

 (d)       The respondent’s response shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the DRC, signed by the respondent and shall contain similar details as the applicant’s notice of dispute[13].

 (e)       The DRC shall reject any notice of dispute that fails to comply with the Rules, and shall promptly notify the applicant of, and the reason for the rejection. However, where the DRC rejects a defendant’s response for non-compliance with the rules, he shall promptly refer the dispute for arbitration[14]. Moreover, the DRC may accept a notice of dispute or a response which fails to comply with Rules if all parties to the dispute consent to its acceptance[15].

 (f)       Upon receipt of a valid notice of dispute and response, the DRC shall notify the parties of such fact and request them to appoint arbitrators as provided in the Rules[16].

 Stage 3:          Mediation/Conciliation – Rule 43.6

By the provisions of Rule 43.6 of the Market Rules, parties to a failed negotiation may elect to resolve their dispute through mediation/ conciliation, instead of directly issuing a notice of dispute under Rule 43.5. The mediation/ conciliation process may be summarized as follows:

 (a)       The parties to a dispute may, instead of filing a notice of dispute, seek amicable resolution of the dispute through mediation/ conciliation[17].

 (b)       A party wishing to initiate conciliation shall send to the other party a written request to conciliate and the conciliation proceedings shall commence on the date the request to conciliate is accepted by the other party[18].

 (c)       The timelines for parties to commence the conciliation proceedings are as follows:

(i)        where the dispute involves an order, direction, instruction or other decision of the SO and/or the MO, within 15 business days of the date of receipt of the order, direction, instruction or decision; and

 (ii)       in all other cases, within 30 business days of the later of the date on which the event that is the subject-matter of the dispute occurred; or the date on which the party initiating the negotiation became aware or, with the exercise of due diligence, ought to have become aware, of the event that is the subject matter of the dispute[19].

 (d)       Where the parties have agreed to conciliation proceedings, the parties shall refer the dispute to a conciliation body consisting of one or three conciliators to be appointed:

 (i)        in the case of one conciliator, jointly by the parties;

(ii)       in the case of three conciliators, one conciliator by each party, and the third conciliator jointly by the parties[20].

 (e)       The Parties may appear in person before the conciliation body and may have legal representation[21].

 (f)       The conciliation body shall hear the parties and shall submit its terms of settlement to them. If the parties agree to the terms of settlement, the conciliation body shall draw up and sign a record of settlement[22].

 (g)       Where the parties do not agree with the terms of settlement within 30 business days after the commencement of conciliation proceeding, or such other period as the parties may agree, either party may:

 (a)       within 20 business days, serve a written notice of the dispute on the respondent; and

 (b)       file with the DRC a copy of the notice of dispute, together with proof of service of the notice of dispute on the respondent[23].

 It should be noted that the provisions of Rule 43.6 of the Market Rules on meditation/conciliation substantially mirror the provisions of Part 2 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act[24]. It should also be noted that there seems to be no role for the DRC or the DRP where the parties successfully resort to mediation/ conciliation.

 Stage 4:          Arbitration – Rule 43.7

Arbitration is the last resort in the framework for dispute resolution under Rule 43 of the Market Rules. To ensure fair and just outcomes, several provisions of the Rules provide for the independence and impartiality of the members of the DRP and the arbitrators. Accordingly, Rule 43.7.4 provides as follows:

 An arbitrator shall be independent of the parties and shall act impartially. An arbitrator who is or becomes aware of circumstances that may give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias shall promptly disclose them to the DRC and the parties.[25]

 Rule 43.7 has detailed provisions for managing the arbitration, and they may be summarized as follows:

 (a)       The arbitration panel shall consist of three arbitrators, or where the parties agree, to one arbitrator, who shall be appointed from the members of the DRP[26].

 (b)       Where the parties have not agreed for a dispute to be resolved by a sole arbitrator within five business days of the receipt of a notice from the DRC, each party to the dispute shall appoint an arbitrator. And where either party fails to appoint an arbitrator the DRC shall appoint an arbitrator for such party, and shall also appoint the third arbitrator[27].

 (c)       Where the parties agree to the resolution of the Dispute by a sole arbitrator, the parties shall appoint the sole arbitrator within five business days of the receipt of the notice from the DRC, and if the parties fail to agree on an arbitrator, the DRC shall appoint the sole arbitrator within three business days[28].

 (d)    The parties shall file their processes within the time lines stipulated by the arbitral panel as follows:

 (i)      The applicant’s written statement containing, among others, a list of the documents to be relied on; copies of all such documents; the applicant’s list of witnesses; and a summary of the anticipated evidence of each witness.[29]

 (ii)     The applicant’s response to the respondent’s reply, or reply to a counter-claim if any. [30]

 (iii)     The respondent’s written statement, the form of which shall be similar to that of the applicant’s submission; a counter-claim if any; and a response to the applicant’s reply to a counter-claim, if any.[31]          

 (e)       The arbitral panel shall exercise wide ranging powers including the following:

 (i)      Except as expressly provided in the Market Rules, determination of the rules of procedure to govern the arbitration.[32]

(ii)     Grant of leave for joinder of parties who have legal, as opposed to commercial interest in the dispute.[33]

(iii)    Grant of leave to use any information other than the written the statements already submitted by the parties.[34]

(iv)     Making of orders for the production of such further or other relevant information.[35]

(v)      Admission of such evidence as may not be admissible in a court of law.[36]

(vi)     Imposition of conditions for the preservation of confidential information provided by parties during the arbitration.[37]

(vii)    Making such orders as to the costs of the arbitration as it determines just and reasonable.[38]

 (f)       By the provisions of Rule 43.7.21, the arbitral panel shall deliver its award in writing within 30 days of completion of the hearing, or such longer period as may be agreed by the parties, giving reasons therefor, and the panel shall immediately file a copy of the award with the DRC.[39]

 (g)       Rule 43.2.4 provides that any award made by the arbitral panel shall:

 (i)        be final and binding on the parties;

 (ii)     be enforceable as an award in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; and

 (iii)      if not complied with, constitute an event of default for which the party could be liable to suspension from participation in the market and/ or disconnection from the grid.[40]

 Dispute Resolution under the NERC Business Rules.

There is yet a different, but related, set of arbitration rules established by NERC for the resolution of disputes outside the framework of Rule 43 of the Market Rules. This is to be found in Schedule 1 of NERC’s Business Rules Regulations of 2006. Principally, the Business Rules stipulates the procedures for the conduct of formal proceedings before NERC such as petitions, investigations, inquiries, et cetera. In addition to those, Schedule 1 of the Business Rules contains a detailed set of arbitration rules also for dispute resolution in the NESI.

 The Schedule clearly recognises the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) established under the Market Rules as the body charged with responsibility for the resolution of disputes between power sector participants arising from the operation of the Market Rules or the Grid Code. However, it further provides that the arbitration of all other disputes arising between licensees under the EPSR Act 2005, or in respect of matters arising from the provisions of the Act between licensees and consumers and third parties may be referred by the party or parties to the NERC for resolution through arbitration in accordance with the rules laid down in the said Schedule 1.

 Under regulation 2 of Schedule 1 of the Business Rules, a party may commence arbitration by serving a notice of arbitration to NERC and the other party to the dispute. Thereafter, NERC shall issue notices to the parties concerned to show cause (if any), why the dispute should not be settled through arbitration. After hearing the parties, and if satisfied that no cause has been shown against the proposed arbitration, NERC may order that the dispute be referred for settlement through arbitration. From a combined reading of regulations 2 and 3 of the schedule, it seems that the arbitration may either be conducted by NERC, or by a sole arbitrator or a panel of three arbitrators appointed by NERC. It also seems reasonably clear that NERC will not appoint members of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) of the Market Rules as arbitrators for these kinds of dispute.

 It seems strange, however, that NERC could be making a distinction without a difference by retaining a different set of arbitrators for the resolution of disputes arising from the power sector when the DRP is already in existence[41].

 Conclusion

Many DisCos have outstanding invoice related disputes with either the Market Operator (MO), or the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Company Ltd (NBET). Outstanding disputes abound among DisCos over energy traded among them at their common boundaries. The MO and the System Operator (SO) continue to have issues with the DisCos over non-compliance with the provisions of either the Market Rules or the Grid Code. The DisCos and TCN continue to trade blames over alleged breaches of the service level agreements between the DisCos and TCN. Even though the list goes on and on, it is safe to say that in all probability, no dispute emanating from these issues will be the subject of a dispute to be resolved under Rule 43 of the Market Rules.

 Several reasons could be advanced for the market participants’ seeming indifference to the existence of the dispute resolution procedures under the Market Rules, including the following:

 (1)       Inelegant drafting of the Market Rules

Consisting of 30 pages of very detailed prescriptions, one could say, perhaps with a hint of embarrassment, that the ponderous drafting of Rules 42 and 43, like the rest of the Market Rules, do not lend to easy reading and comprehension. In short, the Rules could benefit from less verbosity and better drafting.

 (2)       Complicated requirements

For an industry where time is usually of the essence, and where potential disputes abound, the rules appear overly complicated and likely to lead to long delays. It will take a determined party to navigate the treacherous routes of negotiation, declaration of dispute, conciliation and finally arbitration. This will be a real draw-back if parties need to manage disputes frequently.

 (3)       NERC’s ambivalence on the implementation of the Rules

It is on record that NERC recently reconstituted the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP)[42]. The new and re-appointed members of the DRP were introduced to the NESI in an elaborate ceremony at a meeting in Lagos in May 2021. This notwithstanding, NERC still attends to all manner of potential disputes that arise among market participants. One is persuaded that more patronage of the DRP can be achieved if NERC should firmly direct market participants to channel their disputes to the DRP for resolution, either through a regulatory directive, or by simply refusing to handle such complaints/ disputes. Moreover, compelling market participants to resolve their disputes through the provisions of the Market Rules is likely to make them to act more responsibly, in addition to freeing the regulator’s time and enhancing their independence as an impartial sector regulator.

 (4)       Non-implementation of the Transitional Electricity Market (TEM)

Perhaps the biggest draw-back to the implementation of the Market Rules, and by extension, its dispute resolution provisions, is the non-implementation of the Transitional Electricity Market (TEM), after it was declared in 2015.[43] The TEM is defined in Rule 6.1.2 of the Market Rules as characterised by contract-based arrangements for electricity and the introduction of competition into the market.

 Whether TEM was declared prematurely by NERC in 2015 remains a matter of controversy. What is not in contention however, is that the Nigerian power sector is still not run on contract-based arrangements and that the TEM orders are being implemented more in breach than in observance. Until a contracts-based market is achieved in the NESI, and parties bear full responsibility for the actions and omissions, dispute resolution under the framework of the Market Rules may not be fully achieved.

End Notes

[1] Section 26(6) EPSR Act.

[2] Kindly note that whereas Rule 1.3.3 of the Market Rules states that presidential approval was obtained on 15th February 2010, NERC’s two TEM orders of 2015 claim that this was in 2009.

[3] The Grid Code for the Nigerian Electricity Supply Industry, Version 03.

[4] Another apparent conflict between the Market Rules and the EPSR Act is about the body that has the responsibility for the amendment of the Market Rules. Whereas section 26(6) of the EPSR Act provides that its amendments will be developed by the System Operator, and approved by NERC, Rule 42.2.1 of the Market Rules provides that the Stakeholder Advisory Panel (SAP) shall be responsible for reviewing the Market Rules and the Grid Code and proposing and or approving amendments to them on an on-going basis.

 [5] For example, in May 2020, NERC approved the re-appointment of the following members of the Dispute Resolution Panel: Olufunmilayo A. Roberts, Adeyemi Akisanya, Augustine Mamedu, Adeyemi A. Oyedele, Hussaini Mohammed, Okechukwu J. Chiazor, Ajagbe E. Oyetunde, Nnenna Ahukannah, Ezekiel Osarieme, Batholomew C. Onyejekwe, Nnenna Ejekam, and Sadiku Folorunsho. See https://nerc.gov.ng/index.php/media-library/press-releases/620-nerc-reappoints-12-member-dispute-resolution-panel

[6] The duties of the Stakeholder Advisory Panel include the periodic review of the Market Rules and the Grid Code – Rule 42.2.1

[7] Rule 42.3.2

[8] The qualifications include public or private sector experience in generation, transmission, system operation, distribution or marketing of electricity, and professional qualifications in law, accountancy, economics, finance or administration.

[9] The Medium Term Market development phase, as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Market Rules shall be characterized by increased competition, and shall include the following: several Discos, each with a monopoly over retail sales to customers within its franchise region; bilateral energy contracting by Discos; open entry to the market; competition in dispatch; and flexibility in electricity trading arrangements through the implementation of a balancing market.

[10] Business day is defined in the Rule 3.3 of Market Rules as a day other than a Saturday or a Sunday, or a public holiday in Nigeria.

[11] Note however that under Rule 43.4.3, the negotiation requirement will be dispensed with in case of a dispute initiated with respect to a preliminary settlement statement issued by the MO to a market participant,

[12] Rule 43.5.5

[13] Rule 43.5.6

[14] Rules 43.5.8, 43.5.9 and 43.5.10

[15] Rule 43.5.11

[16] Rule 43.5.12

[17] Rule 43.6.1

[18] Rule 43.6.1

[19] Rule 43.6.2

[20] Rule 43.6.4

[21] Rule 43.6.5

[22] Rule 43.6.6

[23] Rule 43.6.8

[24] Cap. 18, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004

[25] See also Rule 32.3.7(b)

[26] Rules 43.7.1 and 43.7.2

[27] Rule 43.7.2

[28] Rule 43.7.3

[29] Rule 43.7.5

[30] Rule 43.7. 9 & 10

[31] Rule 43.7.6 & 10

[32] Rule 43.7.12

[33] Rule 43.7.11

[34] Rule 43.7.13

[35] Rule 43.7.14

[36] Rule 43.7.14

[37] Rule 43.7.16

[38] Rule 43.7.28

[39] Rule 43.7.22

[40] See Rule 45.3

[41] Another difficulty in the application of the arbitration provisions of the Business rules is with respect to disputes between licensees such as distribution companies (DisCos) and their customers. This is because NERC’s regulation on customer complaints resolution – Customer Complaints Handling: Standards and Procedures, 2006 – and the arbitration provisions of the Business Rules are in material conflict in many respects. For example, under the standards and procedures regulation, customer complaints that are not resolved by the DisCos are to be referred to the forum offices established by NERC and headed by standing quasi-judicial panels of five judges for resolution. There is need for NERC to review and align these frameworks for the resolution of disputes in the NESI.

[42] In May 2020, NERC approved the re-appointment of the following members of the Dispute Resolution Panel: Olufunmilayo A. Roberts, Adeyemi Akisanya, Augustine Mamedu, Adeyemi A. Oyedele, Hussaini Mohammed, Okechukwu J. Chiazor, Ajagbe E. Oyetunde, Nnenna Ahukannah, Ezekiel Osarieme, Batholomew C. Onyejekwe, Nnenna Ejekam, and Sadiku Folorunsho. See https://nerc.gov.ng/index.php/media-library/press-releases/620-nerc-reappoints-12-member-dispute-resolution-panel

[43] See Order Directing the Commencement of the Transitional Stage Electricity Market (TEM), Order No. NERC/136 of 29th January 2015. See also the Supplementary Order on the Commencement of the Transitional Stage Electricity Market (TEM), Order No. NERC/15/0011 of 18th March 2015.