The electricity powering your home or business may now be sourced from Ethiopia, not Kenya.
This startling revelation, stemming from EPRA’s decision to prioritize Ethiopian power imports over domestic geothermal generation, has ignited a national debate about energy security and the shifting dynamics of Kenya’s power supply.
The decision to import power from Ethiopia, while seemingly aimed at diversifying Kenya’s energy mix, raises serious questions about the long-term implications for national energy security.
Historically, Kenya has prided itself on its pursuit of energy self-sufficiency, leveraging its abundant renewable energy resources, including geothermal, solar, wind, and hydropower. The Olkaria geothermal fields, for instance, have positioned Kenya as a regional leader in geothermal energy production, accounting for a significant portion of the country’s electricity mix.
As of 2023, geothermal sources contributed approximately 47% to Kenya’s total electricity generation, a testament to the nation’s commitment to harnessing its indigenous renewable potential.
However, EPRA’s decision to import power from Ethiopia, while framed as a strategy to diversify the energy mix, has raised eyebrows and sparked debate. The stated rationale centers on the potential for cheaper power imports from Ethiopia, particularly from its vast hydropower resources.
Read More:
Which 10 EVs Are Driving Kenya’s Electric Boom?
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), for example, is expected to generate over 6,000 MW of electricity, a significant portion of which is earmarked for export.
Yet, the economic rationale behind this decision remains shrouded in ambiguity. A comparative analysis of electricity generation costs in Kenya and Ethiopia reveals a complex picture. While Ethiopia’s hydropower resources offer a theoretically lower cost of generation, the transmission costs associated with importing power over vast distances can significantly offset these savings.
The 500kV Eastern Electricity Highway, the transmission line facilitating these imports, represents a substantial infrastructure investment, with costs that will ultimately be factored into the price of imported electricity.
Furthermore, the long-term stability of power imports from Ethiopia is subject to geopolitical factors and regional dynamics.
The Horn of Africa, where both Kenya and Ethiopia are located, is a region characterized by political instability and intermittent conflicts. Any disruption in power imports, due to political unrest, infrastructure damage, or other unforeseen events, could have severe consequences for Kenya’s economy and national security.
To illustrate, consider the potential impact of a hypothetical scenario where political tensions escalate in the Horn of Africa, leading to damage to the transmission infrastructure connecting Kenya and Ethiopia. Such a disruption could result in widespread power outages in Kenya, impacting industries, businesses, and households. According to a study by the Kenya Association of Manufacturers (KAM), a single day of nationwide power outages can result in losses exceeding $50 million for Kenyan industries.
Moreover, Kenya’s historical reliance on domestic renewable energy resources has provided a critical buffer against external shocks. During periods of drought, for instance, when hydropower generation is reduced, Kenya has been able to rely on its geothermal resources to maintain grid stability. EPRA’s decision to shift towards imported power undermines this buffer, increasing the nation’s vulnerability to external factors.
The potential for economic disruption extends beyond immediate losses. A study by the World Bank indicates that reliable and affordable electricity is a critical driver of economic growth. By increasing its reliance on imported power, Kenya risks jeopardizing its long-term economic development trajectory.
Kenya’s abundant renewable energy resources offer a pathway to sustainable economic growth, job creation, and climate change mitigation. By prioritizing domestic renewable energy generation, Kenya can reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, which still contribute to a portion of the country’s energy mix, particularly during peak demand. The Lake Turkana Wind Power project, for example, is expected to generate 310 MW of clean energy, enough to power over one million Kenyan households.
However, the decision to import power from Ethiopia, rather than maximizing domestic renewable energy generation, represents a missed opportunity for green growth. It undermines Kenya’s efforts to transition to a low-carbon economy and potentially delays the nation’s progress towards achieving its climate goals.
To illustrate, consider the potential impact of EPRA’s decision on the development of Kenya’s solar energy sector. Kenya has abundant solar resources, particularly in the arid and semi-arid regions. By prioritizing Ethiopian power imports, EPRA may be sending a signal to investors that the government is less committed to developing domestic solar projects. This could lead to a slowdown in investment in the solar sector, hindering Kenya’s progress towards its renewable energy targets.
Furthermore, the decision to import power from Ethiopia raises concerns about the potential for job losses in Kenya’s renewable energy sector. The development and operation of renewable energy projects, such as geothermal and solar, create numerous jobs in manufacturing, construction, and maintenance. By prioritizing imported power, EPRA may be inadvertently undermining job creation in these sectors.
EPRA’s decision to prioritize Ethiopian power imports over domestic geothermal generation has far-reaching implications for Kenya’s energy security, economic stability, and environmental sustainability. While the potential for cheaper power imports may seem attractive in the short term, the long-term risks and consequences must be carefully considered.
Kenya must prioritize the development of its abundant domestic renewable energy resources to ensure a secure, affordable, and sustainable energy future for its citizens.
