N112,606 dispute: Solar power user questions EKEDC’s billing practices

By Odunewu Olusegun

A Lagos property owner, Raphael Awoseyin, has accused Eko Electricity Distribution Company (EKEDC) of demanding N112,606 in alleged loss-of-revenue charges after he installed an 18kW solar power system and reduced his dependence on the electricity distribution company’s supply.

The allegation, made by Raphael Awoseyin in an account dated October 19, 2026, raises questions about how electricity distribution companies assess customers whose consumption falls significantly after investing in alternative energy sources.

According to Awoseyin, who lives in Lekki Phase 1, his decision to rely primarily on solar power for daytime electricity needs has been followed by more frequent visits from EKEDC personnel seeking to inspect his prepaid meter.

He alleged that the company’s representatives eventually presented him with a disconnection notice, claiming that his reduced electricity consumption indicated a possible meter fault and demanding payment of N112,606 under a charge described as “LOR”, or Loss of Revenue.

The account has brought renewed attention to the potential tension between Nigeria’s electricity distribution companies, which depend on electricity sales for revenue, and consumers increasingly investing in solar systems to reduce their exposure to unreliable grid supply and electricity costs.

However, the allegation remains the account of the customer. EKEDC’s explanation for the assessment, the technical condition of the meter and the basis for the amount demanded have not been independently established.

How solar investment triggered meter scrutiny

Awoseyin said he installed an 18kW solar power system at his Lekki property, making electricity supplied by EKEDC largely a backup option rather than his primary source of power.

READ ALSO; Lagos to experience 25-day power outage as Ikeja Electric, EKEDC announce major grid maintenance

He alleged that following the installation, personnel of the distribution company began visiting his premises more frequently to inspect his prepaid meter.

During one of the visits, he said, the officials watched the meter to determine whether it was registering electricity consumption. When the meter showed little or no movement, they allegedly suspected that he had bypassed it.

Awoseyin said he explained that his solar installation supplied most of his daytime electricity requirements, leaving him with little need to draw power from the public grid.

To demonstrate that the meter was functioning, he said he switched his property to EKEDC supply through his inverter bypass for approximately two minutes.

According to his account, the meter then registered consumption normally, but the officials appeared dissatisfied with the explanation.

Awoseyin further alleged that he overheard one of the personnel mutter a remark suggesting that he was unwilling to allow them to make money from him.

The alleged remark could not be independently verified.

READ ALSO; Aggressive metering of customers will address estimated billings- EKEDC

The episode, as described by the property owner, raises a central question: whether unusually low electricity consumption should, on its own, trigger suspicion of meter tampering or whether distribution companies should first establish through documented technical tests that a meter is defective or has been bypassed.

A solar-powered property can draw substantially less electricity from the grid than it did before installation. Such a reduction does not, by itself, establish meter bypass, electricity theft or equipment failure.

N112,606 demand over alleged loss of revenue

The dispute reportedly escalated on October 19, when three EKEDC personnel arrived at Awoseyin’s property with a notice of disconnection.

He said the last time he purchased electricity units for his prepaid meter was in July 2026 and that he still had a substantial balance remaining.

When he questioned the proposed disconnection, the officials allegedly told him the reason was “LOR”, which they described as loss of revenue.

According to Awoseyin, they maintained that his low consumption suggested that the meter was faulty and demanded N112,606 to compensate for the alleged revenue shortfall.

He said he disputed the explanation and offered to have the meter tested to establish whether it was functioning correctly.

The official, he alleged, responded that the company was losing revenue and needed to recover the amount.

Awoseyin said he rejected the demand, arguing that his reduced reliance on EKEDC resulted from his investment in solar energy rather than any deliberate interference with the prepaid meter.

He also said he intended to lodge a formal complaint with the relevant regulatory authority if the company disconnected his premises.

The available account does not establish whether the N112,606 assessment was accompanied by a written technical report, a meter-test result, a consumption audit or a detailed calculation showing how the amount was derived.

These details are important because a claim of revenue loss arising from suspected under-registration is different from a charge imposed simply because a customer purchases fewer electricity units.

A distribution company seeking to recover alleged losses would need to establish the factual and regulatory basis for the assessment, rather than rely solely on a customer’s reduced demand for grid electricity.